- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48169-DB WP No. 33131 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 33131 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SURESHA P S/O PUTTAMADA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER (GRADE-I) K D KOTE MYSORE 571114 R/A NO. WARD NO.16 NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL WARD NO.16 H D KOTE TOWN MYSORE 571114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITHIN RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMNENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT MUNICPAL ADMINSITRATION AND MUNICIPAL LOCAL BODIES ROOM NUMBER Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48169-DB WP No. 33131 of 2025 435 4TH FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 01. 2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNCIPAL ADMINSITRATION DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER BANGALORE 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GIRIBHOVIPALYA SIDDARTHANAGARA MYSURU 570011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V SHIVAREDDY., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS, PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-A a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2025 PASSED BY KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.4479/2025, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A; b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER TO WORK IN THE CADRE OF CHIEF OFFICER, H.D. KOTE TMC TO MEET - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48169-DB WP No. 33131 of 2025 THE ENDS OF JUSTICE; c) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COST OF WRIT PROCEEDINGS TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner has filed his application in No.4479/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'], and the petitioner has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dated 29.10.2025 [Annexure-A]. The Tribunal has opined that it does not find a prima facie case to stay the operation of the second respondent's order dated 13.10.2025. The second respondent by this order dated 13.10.2025 has kept the petitioner under suspension with a lien over a post in Yadgiri District. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48169-DB WP No. 33131 of 2025 The petitioner is working as a Chief Officer (Grade -1) in H.D. Kote, Mysuru. 2. Sri Nitin Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene and protect the petitioner with just interim orders in the light of the following circumstances. [a] The petitioner is served with the Articles of Charge on 30.08.2025 with certain imputations, and the petitioner has filed his response denying the imputations. [b] An Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer are appointed on 25.04.2025, and on the same day the second respondent has ordered a preliminary enquiry into the very imputation. [c] After the appointment of the Enquiry Officer/Presenting Officer and the order for the preliminary enquiry into the imputation [which are part of the Articles of Charge] different - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48169-DB WP No. 33131 of 2025 enquiry notices [as part of the departmental proceedings] have been issued, and the petitioner has filed his response in such proceedings. [d] The departmental proceedings are still underway, and notices are yet to be issued to the witnesses, but meanwhile the second respondent has issued the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 keeping the petitioner under suspension with lien post as aforesaid only because the petitioner has failed to respond to the notice issued after the order dated 25.04.2025 calling for another preliminary enquiry. 3. Mr. Nitin Ramesh submits that the petitioner, who has already filed responses twice [once to the Articles of Charge and next in the inquiry proceedings itself], cannot be compelled to file - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48169-DB WP No. 33131 of 2025 another response to the preliminary enquiry when inquiry could be in serious jeopardy because of the pending inquiry; that if this is the position, the alleged failure does not offer any cause to keep the petitioner under suspension and that the Tribunal has overlooked the material circumstances in opining that there is no prima facie case for granting stay of the operation of the second respondent's order. Sri.V.Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard on whether there must be any interference with the Tribunal’s opinion on the lack of a prima facie case. 4. This Court must observe that the Tribunal in rendering this opinion has not obviously considered the afore circumstances as emphasized before this Court. The Tribunal is persuaded to opine that there is no prima facie case, as could be seen from the order, only because the petitioner has not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48169-DB WP No. 33131 of 2025 responded to the notices issued after the second respondent's order dated 25.04.2025. This order is for a preliminary inquiry into the imputations that are the subject matter of the Articles of charge. 5. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not considered the material circumstances and that exceptional circumstances are made out for this Court's interference to grant an interim order staying the operation of the second respondent's order dated 13.10.2025 keeping the petitioner under suspension. Further, this Court must hasten to add that this Court's interference cannot have a bearing on the outcome in the application, that the Tribunal must decide on the merits, and that the respondents must be at liberty to seek early disposal of the application on the merits. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed, and the Tribunal's impugned order dated 29.10.2025 in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48169-DB WP No. 33131 of 2025 Application No.4479/2025 [Annexure-A] is quashed staying the operation of the second respondent's impugned order dated 13.10.2025. This order shall be in operation until the disposal of this Application in No.4479/2025 or unless the respondents place on record subsequent turn of events. The respondents will be at liberty to seek early disposal of the petitioner's application. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SA ct:sr