- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 33384 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: MAHESH KUMAR B K S/O.LATE B.KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, ILWALA POLICE STATION, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-571130. SUSPENDED ON 28.06.2025, RESIDING AT NO.68, 1ST STAGE, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSORE-570019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560009. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH DIVISION, MYSORE-571107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. SHIVAREDDY., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BANGALORE DATED 10.10.2025 IN APPLICATION No. 3090/2025 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C; b) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.06.2025 IN No. 02/EST-3/EV/2025/26 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A1 IN (ANNEXURE-A) OF THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 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 is unsuccessful in his application in No.3090/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The petitioner has filed this application with the Tribunal calling in question the second respondent's order dated 28.06.2025, and the second respondent by this order has kept the petitioner, who was working as Police Sub Inspector [PSI], Ilvala Police Station, Mysuru under suspension. 2. The second respondent has also kept some other police officers under suspension by the same order. The Tribunal, which has elaborately referred to the antecedent circumstances, has refused to interfere opining that it is for the Disciplinary Authority and not the Courts to decide on whether an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 employee should be kept under suspension during inquiry and that the decision to keep an employee under suspension does not amount to imposing a punishment. 3. Mr. A. Nagarajappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the afore propositions, submits that the petitioner's grievance with the Tribunal's refusal to interfere with the second respondent's order dated 28.06.2025 must be considered in the light of the following circumstances: 3.1 The petitioner, as part of the initial investigating team, has investigated the first information received from Mrs.Mallige’s husband [the first informant] that she had died and the receipt of information that the dead body of an unknown person was seen. 3.2 The investigating team, after the investigation with even Mrs. Mallige’s mother identifying the clothes as found on the body of the unknown - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 person, has filed a charge sheet against Mrs.Mallige’s husband. 3.3 During the trial, Mrs.Mallige is examined as a witness, and that is the reason for the Sessions Court in S.C.No.292/2022 to opine that there is mischief by the officials who are part of the investigation and the Courts cannot allow such lapses in the investigation. 3.4 The Sessions Court, insofar as another officer, has opined that he would be the author of the entire false case and that he has fabricated the evidence to implicate the accused. The Sessions Court, pursuant to such observation, has also directed the Inspector General of Police [the second respondent] to initiate departmental proceedings on all those who were part of the investigation. The Sessions Court has also called upon the second respondent to submit a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 report on the initiation of the departmental proceedings. 3.5 The petitioner has called in question the directions of the Sessions Court before this Court in W.P.No.21833/2025 [GM-RES]. This Court has stayed all further proceedings in S.C.No.292/2022 against the petitioner, and this order continues to be in force. 4. Sri A. Nagarajappa, inviting this Court's attention to the terms of the second respondent's impugned order dated 28.06.2025, submits that in exercise of power under Rule 5 of the Karnataka State Police [Disciplinary Proceedings] Rules 1965 [for short, 'the Police Rules'], a police officer may be kept under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or is pending or there is a commission of an offence that is under investigation or under trial, and the second respondent, being the Disciplinary Authority, should have considered all the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 circumstances to assess whether there was any justification to keep the petitioner under suspension. 5. Sri A. Nagarajappa submits that however the second respondent has kept the petitioner under suspension only because of certain observations by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.292/2022 though it cannot be disputed that the first information is dated 19.10.2020 and the petitioner was in Bettadapura police station only until 21.11.2020 and was not part of the investigation after his transfer. The learned counsel further submits that the second respondent has invoked the General Service Rules and not the Police Rules and the fact that the General Services Rules are invoked shows that there is a complete lack of application of mind and that if all relevant circumstances are considered, the petitioner could not have been kept under suspension especially when it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner is presently posted at Ilavala - outside the mischief zone. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 6. Sri. V. Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of this canvass, and the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this Court may not interfere because it would be open to the second respondent, in view of Rule 5 (6) of the Police Rules and if final orders in the pending enquiry cannot be completed within six [6] months from the date of order of suspension, to refer to the Government for a just decision and that within six [6] months appropriate decision will be taken by the Government. 7. As first mentioned, the propositions relied upon by the Tribunal are not contested and what is canvassed by this Court's consideration is that the Tribunal should have intervened with the second respondent's order dated 28.06.2025 to keep the petitioner under suspension in the light of the peculiar facts of the case, and on the ground of lack of application of mind. It is also canvassed that there - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 is a failure to consider that the petitioner cannot be said to be within the mischief zone. 8. The Sessions Court has indeed made certain observations observing that there are certain lapses resulting in an unfair investigation, but this Court must also observe that the Sessions Court has opined that another officer is the author of the entire false case and he has fabricated the evidence. If the lapse in the investigation is the reason for keeping the petitioner under suspension pending institution of the departmental inquiry, the second respondent, in this Court's view, should have considered these observations as well. Significantly, the Sessions Court's observations, including the direction to the second respondent to start departmental proceedings and file a report, is brought under this Court's scanning in W.P.No.21833/2025 [GM-RES]. The efficacy of those observations would also be decided by this Court, and the further proceedings viz., the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 report to be filed with the Sessions Court are stayed by this Court. 9. The second respondent, without a detailed reference to the petitioner's part in the investigation and the Sessions Court's observation, has formed an opinion on keeping the petitioner under suspension, and this Court must also opine that, with the lapse of time and the petitioner being posted outside the limits of Bettadapura police station, he will definitely be outside the mischief zone and the second respondent should also have considered this in deciding to keep the petitioner under suspension. 10. These are material circumstances that the Tribunal should have considered, and this justifies interference by this Court. At this stage, this Court must refer to the petitioner's case that the second respondent has not invoked the power under the Police Rules and such exercise is under the General Service Rules, but this Court, on a detailed perusal of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 the terms of the second respondent's order dated 28.06.2025, is of the definite opinion that decision is under Police Rules and the reference to the terms to the General Service Rules is only for mentioning the benefit that the petitioner would be entitled to while under suspension and the terms that would govern the petitioner's conduct while under suspension. Therefore, there is no interference on this ground. In the light of the afore: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed, and the second respondent's impugned order dated 28.06.2025 [Annexure-A1] insofar as the petitioner is quashed setting aside the Tribunal's order dated 10.10.2025 in Application No.3090/2025. [b] The second respondent is directed to issue appropriate orders to enable the petitioner to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45712-DB WP No. 33384 of 2025 report to his post within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RB,SA ct:sr