- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36182-DB WP No. 26430 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH 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. 26430 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI L KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGAIAH WORKING AS PDO R/O RAMADEVANAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA POST, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560066 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND NOMINATED ADDL.SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (GRAM PANCHAYATH) DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36182-DB WP No. 26430 of 2024 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BANGALORE RURAL ZILLA PANCHAYATH, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, CHAPPARADA KALLU, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 3. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R-1; SRI.N.M.BHASKAR GOWDA, ADV. FOR SMT.GEETHA C.J., ADV. FOR R-2 & SRI.K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2024 PASSED BY THE KSAT BANGALORE IN A.No.4963/2023 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF REINSTATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36182-DB WP No. 26430 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 28.08.2024 in Application No.4963/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short "Tribunal") to the extent, while remanding the matter for fresh enquiry and not directing the reinstatement of the petitioner's service, is before this Court in the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri.S.B.Mukkanappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri. N.M.Bhaskar Gowda, learned counsel for Smt. Geetha C.J., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri. K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is before this Court with limited extent of not directing the reinstatement of petitioner while remanding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36182-DB WP No. 26430 of 2024 the matter for fresh enquiry under the impugned order dated 28.08.2024. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal finding fault with the procedure followed in the enquiry, remitted the enquiry to the Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of recording evidence, giving liberty to both sides to lead their further evidence, if any. Learned counsel would submit that while remanding the matter, the Tribunal ought to have directed reinstatement or ought to have observed that the petitioner would be under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry. Thus, the petitioner would have been entitled to full salary or subsistence allowance. Learned counsel would submit that without subsistence allowance it would be difficult for the petitioner to sustain himself and his family. Thus, learned counsel would pray for passing appropriate order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36182-DB WP No. 26430 of 2024 respondent No.2 has already initiated an enquiry by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer to proceed from the stage as directed by the Tribunal. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, in the peculiarity of the case, we are of the considered opinion that though the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement, he would be deemed to be under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry. As observed by the Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, LIC and another V/s. A. Masilamani reported in 2013 6(SCC) 530, once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the petitioner would not be automatically entitled for reinstatement, however, it would mean that on setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal, the order of dismissal would not exist in the eye of law and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36182-DB WP No. 26430 of 2024 petitioner is deemed to have continued in service. The only question is whether he would be entitled to reinstatement or whether he would be continued under suspension. 6. Rule 99 and 100 of KCSRs, which regulates the period during which government servant was out of service, on setting aside the order of dismissal or removal, would not contemplate the present situation. However, it is a principle of law that normally no enquiry could be held without the subsistence allowance to such a government servant. In the above circumstances, we pass the following: ORDER The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 28.08.2024 in Application No.4963/2023 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the petitioner would be deemed to be under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry and he would be entitled to subsistence - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36182-DB WP No. 26430 of 2024 allowance from the date of order of the Tribunal till the completion of enquiry. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8