- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30794 WP No. 19102 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19102 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI HARSHAVARDHANA S/O SRI. MUKUNDA RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS WORKING AS CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR OFFICE OF GRAM PANCHAYAT KANIVEBILACHI GRAM PANCHAYAT CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577 231 (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION) R/O KANIVEBILACHI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 231 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DAVANAGERE LOKIKERE ROAD, OPP. DOORDARSHAN KENDRA DAVANAGERE-577005. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER KANIVEBILACHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 231. 3. THE PRESIDENT KANIVEBILACHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHANNAGIRI TALUK Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30794 WP No. 19102 of 2025 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 231 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KANIVEBILACHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 231. 5. SMT.BHAVANI.M CLERK CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR OFFICE OF GRAM PANCHAYAT KANIVEBILACHI GRAM PANCHAYAT CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4: SRI H DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 [ABSENT]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SETTING- ASIDE THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 21/01/2025 BEARING NO GRAPAMKA/2024-25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER PENDING ENQUIRY AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the suspension order, dated 22.01.2025 vide Annexure-L, passed by the third respondent. 2. The petitioner was working as a Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator in the fourth respondent - Grama - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30794 WP No. 19102 of 2025 Panchayat. While he was in service, vide Annexure-D dated 30.09.2024, he was removed from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the appellate authority by filing an appeal under Section 113(3) and (4) of the Karnataka Panchayatraj Act. The appellate authority, by order dated 17.12.2024 set aside the dismissal order and directed the competent authority to take action as per the law. Thereafter, the third respondent passed the impugned order by exercising the power under Rule 8 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayatraj (Staffing Pattern, Scale of Pay, Method of Recruitment and other Conditions of Service of Employees of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 2020. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the impugned suspension order has been passed on 22.01.2025. Even after a lapse of six months, the respondents have not initiated the departmental enquiry. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30794 WP No. 19102 of 2025 the Apex Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRERTARY ANDANOTHER reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the respondents have framed the charges, charge memo has been served on the petitioner and enquiry has been initiated. Even though the articles of charges has been issued after six months, as on today, they have already initiated the departmental enquiry. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 6. In the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY (supra), the Apex Court, in the operative portion of the order held as follows: “So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30794 WP No. 19102 of 2025 a charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. ………………” 7. In the case on hand also, charge memo is served on the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the charge memo is issued after six months, therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside, is unsustainable. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed. In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43