- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26189-DB WP No. 15393 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.15393 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. RENUKA K s/o KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GRADE-II, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, THIGALARA HOSAHALLI, T. BEKUPPE POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117. NOW UNDER AN ORDER OF SUSPENSION, R/AT ANGAJANAHALLI, DODDAMUDIGERE POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA -562 131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26189-DB WP No. 15393 of 2024 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, 2ND FLOOR, ZILLA PANCHAYATH BHAVAN, B. M. ROAD, RAMANAGAR - 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.05.2024 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1721/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher Grade-II is before this Court under Article–226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by order dated 31.05.2024, in Application No.1721 of 2024 by the Karnataka State Administrative - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26189-DB WP No. 15393 of 2024 Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by which the petitioner’s challenge to an order of suspension dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure-A11) is rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Sathish for the petitioner, learned AGA, Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially suspended on 17.05.2023 and challenging the said order of suspension, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.2026/2023. It is stated that the Tribunal by an order dated 23.05.2023 refused to grant interim order of stay of suspension order, against which the petitioner was before this Court in Writ Petition No.10576/2023. This Court by an order dated 31.05.2023 allowed the writ petition granting stay of order of suspension. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have been reinstated by an order dated 09.06.2023. Again the petitioner was kept under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26189-DB WP No. 15393 of 2024 suspension by an order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure- A11). The said order of suspension was the subject matter of Application No.1721/2024. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 31.05.2024, rejected the petitioner’s application, against which the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.K.Sathish would submit that though the charge-memo is issued on 20.11.2023, within six months from the date of order of suspension dated 04.07.2023, the respondent has not passed any order under Rule-10(5)(b) of KSA (CCA) Rules 1957. The learned counsel would submit that the above Rule mandates the respondents to pass order in terms of proviso to Rule-10(5)(b) of KSA (CCA) Rules 1957 as to whether continuation of extension of suspension would be necessary or not. 5. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no such order of suspension - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26189-DB WP No. 15393 of 2024 is passed. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner would be entitled for revocation of suspension and posting. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned AGA, Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the suspension of the petitioner is on 04.07.2023 and well within the time, the charge-memo is issued on 20.11.2023. Therefore, he submits that no order under Proviso Rule-10(5)(b) of KSA (CCA) Rules 1957 would be necessary. It is his submission that where the authorities would fail to issue charge memo within six months as contemplated under Rule-10(5)(b) of KSA (CCA) Rules 1957, then only order extending the suspension would be necessary. Hence, learned AGA would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that arises for our consideration is: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26189-DB WP No. 15393 of 2024 “Whether interference is needed to the impugned order of the Tribunal? 8. Our answer to the above point would be ‘negative’ for the following reasons: The petitioner was kept under suspension under order dated 04.07.2023, whereas the charge-memo has been issued on 20.11.2023. The charge-memo issued is within six months from the date of keeping the petitioner under suspension. In terms of Rule-10(5)(b) of KCS (CCA) Rules 1957, deciding whether to revoke or continue such Government servant under suspension would arise only in the circumstances where departmental enquiry is not commenced. Departmental enquiry would deem to have been commenced on the date of issuance of charge memo. 9. In the instant case, the charge-memo is issued on 20.11.2023, within six months from the date of keeping the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, in the present fact situation no order continuing the petitioner under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26189-DB WP No. 15393 of 2024 suspension would be necessary. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24