- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42395 WP No. 21117 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 21117 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.SOMASUNDRU S/O KUNDAYALAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MANAGER AT MYSURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FORMERLY KNOWN AS MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY R/AT NO 173/3, SHIVAPURA, MAHANANDVADI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PREMAKUMAR A.L., ADVOCATE) AND: MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), JHANSI RANI LASKHMIBAI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 005. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO. SANKHYE. MYNAPRAA/SIBBANDI-3/PR.278/2012-13 DATED 09-04-2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT VIDE ANNEXURE C. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42395 WP No. 21117 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER Petitioner filed this petition seeking for quashing Annexure-C dated 09.04.2025. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground by the respondent-Authority on 24.12.2012 as a First Division Assistant and he reported to the duty on 28.12.2012. A complaint was received against the petitioner. The Special Tahsildar without obtaining a prior permission either from the Secretary or the Commissioner, executed a sale deed. It is contented that when the matter is stood thus, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.03.2025, alleging that the property was not transferred till 06.04.2024. However, a seal deed was executed on 26.03.2024. The petitioner has submitted a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42395 WP No. 21117 of 2025 reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter the petitioner was kept under a suspension vide order dated 09.04.2025. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of suspension filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has kept the petitioner under suspension for more than six months. He submits that the order of suspension was neither extended nor revoked. He placed a reliance on Clause (b) of sub-rule (5) of Rule (10) of The Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Hence, he submits that in case if the order of suspension is neither revoked nor continued, the suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked. Further, he buttress his argument by placing reliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18918/2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42395 WP No. 21117 of 2025 disposed of on 13.10.2025 and hence on this ground he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. I have perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the employee of the respondent. On the basis of the complaint received by the respondent, respondent- Authority has initiated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice and the petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. The respondent being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed an order of suspension dated 09.04.2025 and also issued the article of charges. But the enquiry has not been concluded. In order to consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Clause (b) of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42395 WP No. 21117 of 2025 sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of The Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which reads as under: "(b) If departmental inquiry is not commenced against the delinquent Government Servant or charge sheet is not filed in the court within a period of six months from suspension, the competent authority shall decide whether to revoke or continue suspension of such Government Servant and unless decided and ordered for continuation within this period, the suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked i.e., from the date of completion of a period of six months from the date of suspension. Upon such revocation of the order of his suspension, it shall be the duty of the Government Servant to immediately seek order of posting from the Appointing Authority, failing which he shall be deemed to be on unauthorized absence with effect from the date of revocation of the order of his suspension.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. From the perusal of Clause (b) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of the Rules, 1957, if the departmental enquiry is not commenced against the delinquent Government Servant or charge-sheet is not filed within a period of six months from the suspension, the Competent Authority shall decide whether to revoke or continue suspension of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42395 WP No. 21117 of 2025 such Government Servant, and unless decided and ordered for continuation within this period, the suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked. 9. In view of the deemed revoking clause, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The order of suspension stands revoked by operation of law. iii. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14