- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34091-DB WP No. 6586 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 6586 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI D S RAMKRISHNA S/O. SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DEVARAMALLANAYANKANAHALLI, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571432. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. USMAN P., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA, MANDYA-571401. 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH MANDYA, MANDYA-571401. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34091-DB WP No. 6586 of 2025 4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA-571401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI J.M. ANILKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 SRI B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADV. FOR R3 SRI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03/02/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.4163/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard learned counsel Sri.P.Usman for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri.J.M.Anil Kumar for respondent No.2, learned counsel Sri.B.J.Somayaji for respondent No.3 as well as learned counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraju for respondent No.4. Perused the writ petition papers. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34091-DB WP No. 6586 of 2025 2. Petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved by rejection of his application under order dated 03.02.2025 in Application No.4163/2024 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), rejecting his challenge to order of suspension dated 08.02.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Usman would submit that the petitioner is suspended on 08.02.2024 and the suspension is continued for more than a year. It is his submission that there is no allegation of misappropriation and the allegation is to the effect that he has produced bogus SSLC marks card. When there is no serious allegation, continuing suspension of the petitioner for more than a year is unreasonable and unfair, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, in pursuance of the order of suspension, Articles of Charge was issued and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34091-DB WP No. 6586 of 2025 Enquiry Officer who was entrusted to conduct enquiry is recording evidence. Further, learned counsel Sri.J.M.Anil Kumar appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that if time of 4 months is granted, the Enquiry Officer would complete the enquiry and submit his report. 5. Learned counsel Sri.B.J.Somayaji appearing for respondent No.3 pointed out that order of suspension is dated 08.02.2024 and the said suspension order is extended further, during the pendency of the enquiry by passing a separate order as required under Rule 10(5)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957 (for short “CCA Rules”). Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the impugned order of suspension. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34091-DB WP No. 6586 of 2025 7. The charge against the petitioner is very serious, in that, the charge is obtaining employment by submitting fabricated SSLC marks card. In pursuance of the said allegation, Articles of Charge has already been issued and the Enquiry Officer appointed to conduct the enquiry is at the stage of recording evidence. The enquiry is to find out the truth or otherwise of submitting fabricated SSLC certificate by the petitioner. When the charges are serious, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to decide as to whether to keep the Government servant under suspension or to reinstate such Government servant during the pendency of the enquiry. The order of suspension is a reasoned order. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal would indicate that the said order of suspension is reviewed and continued during the pendency of the enquiry. When the Disciplinary Authority has taken a conscious decision to continue the petitioner under suspension in the facts and circumstances, it may not be appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34091-DB WP No. 6586 of 2025 decision of the Disciplinary Authority. However, the enquiry needs to be completed in a time bound manner. The Circular issued by the State Government requires the Disciplinary Authority to complete the enquiry, within nine months from the date of issuance of charge memo. In the instant case, the charge memo is dated 28.08.2024 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 02.12.2024. Therefore, taking note of the above, we direct the respondents to complete the enquiry within an outer limit of three months from today. 8. With the above, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17