- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45361-DB WP No. 33545 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH 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. 33545 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: DR. M V VENKATESH I.A.S., S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH AGE BOUT 47 YEARS COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BENGALURU MINTO ANJANEYA BHAVANA ALURU VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU 560018 AND RESIDING AT NO 394, RHBCS LAYOUT 2ND STAGE 60 FEET ROAD SRIGANDHADA KAVALU NAGARABHAVI, NEAR ARUN ICE CREAM BENGALURU 560091. …PETITIONER (SRI. M. NAGARAJAN., ADVOCATE) Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45361-DB WP No. 33545 of 2025 AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001. 2. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP BYITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNTAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001. 4. THE STATE OFKARNATAKA REP BYSECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAYAKAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHARATH DODWAD., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45361-DB WP No. 33545 of 2025 OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE CAT, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN OA No. 170/00513/2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP 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 [a Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bengaluru] is kept under suspension by the first respondent vide Order dated 31.10.2025. The petitioner has called this order in question with the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in the Application in O.A. No.170/00513/2025, and when the petitioner's request for interim order is listed on 04.11.2025, the Tribunal has observed thus: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45361-DB WP No. 33545 of 2025 "But looking to the overall circumstances and the conduct of the applicant, in view of this Court, no any ex-parte stay order can be granted in this case.” The question for consideration is whether this Court must intervene with this order, when the Tribunal has further observed that the question of granting an interim stay will be considered after giving an opportunity to the authorities. Sri M Nagarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jayakar S Shetty, the learned counsel for the first respondent, Sri Sharath Dodwad, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the third and the fourth respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition. 2. The petitioner is visited with a decision to keep him under suspension allegedly because he has falsified the Arrival Report. The facts are that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45361-DB WP No. 33545 of 2025 petitioner is called upon for briefing in view of the scheduled Bihar General Elections 2025. The petitioner has sought for exemption from attending the briefing, which is rejected, and the petitioner has attended the briefing held on 30.10.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner is allocated the responsibilities of ‘the General Observer' for Constituency No.206. The petitioner, in terms of this assignment, should have reported his arrival on 19.10.2025. The petitioner has generated such a report on 20.10.2025 [the Arrival Report], but without being at the place for reporting. 3. The petitioner's case is that he had developed a condition which required him to consult a Medical Practitioner who advised him against travelling he booked a ticket to travel, and in anticipation of the destination to report, he forwarded the Arrival Report. When he reached airport in Bengaluru, he received a message that he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45361-DB WP No. 33545 of 2025 is on reserve and must stay back. Thereafter, he had to undergo hospitalisation for about four days. The petitioner's contention, based on these circumstances, is that he is bona fide in his conduct and there is no reason for a decision to keep him under suspension. 4. Sri M Nagarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while underscoring the afore, submits that the fourth respondent has not considered whether notwithstanding all the circumstances alleged, the petitioner's continuance in the present job would in any manner impede the contemplated enquiry, and as such, there is a case for interference. The respondents' case as against the afore hinges on the assertion that because the petitioner was not keen on reporting to discharge his duties as the General Observer, he tried to avoid the briefing scheduled on 03.10.2025 and when that was not possible, he has, even without reaching the place of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45361-DB WP No. 33545 of 2025 arrival, generated the Arrival Report. The respondents also assert that though the petitioner has caused reply to the show cause notice on 23.10.2025, he contends that he was hospitalized between 22.10.2025 and 26.10.2025. 5. This Court is also informed on behalf of the respondents, on oral instructions, that the petitioner had not even applied for leave and that he is presently served with Articles of Charges. Sri M Nagarajan proposes to bring forth certain circumstances in rejoinder to refute the respondents' case. The question for consideration is examined in the backdrop of the rival contentions as stated and briefed about. However, the Tribunal is yet to decide on the merits of the respondents' decision, and in fact, it has observed that the request for the interim order will be considered after granting an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45361-DB WP No. 33545 of 2025 6. This Court opines that the circumstances relied upon the petitioner do not make out an exception for this Court to intervene when the Tribunal is still seized of the matter. As such, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the request for interim order with the Tribunal observing that all questions are left open for consideration and taking on record the submissions both on behalf of the second respondent and third and fourth respondents that without further notice there would be a due representation in the application before the Tribunal when it is next listed [18.11.2025]. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-