- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2279 WP No. 107540 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107540 OF 2023 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: RAVINDRA S/O. DYAMAPPA BAGALKOTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: CHIEF OFFICER T.P. M. K. HUBBALLI, R/O: VIDYAGIRI DHARWAD, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD- 580005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION, R/O: 9TH FLOOR, VV TOWER, BENGALURU -560006. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI- 590001. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI- 590001. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2279 WP No. 107540 of 2023 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER TMC UGAR KHURDA, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI- 591304. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. L. M. KIRNAMATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11/12/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.1135652/DMA NQ2/BGM/30/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: i) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari or any appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 11/12/2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 in No.1135652/DMA NQ2/BGM/30/2023 produced at Annexure-E, in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2279 WP No. 107540 of 2023 2. This Court entertaining the petition in terms of its order dated 18.12.2023 stayed the order of suspension on the score that it does not satisfy the rigor of Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short “the Rules”) and the interim order so granted on 18.12.2023 reads as follows: “Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.5. For the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of applications, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 are allowed. Production of typed copies of Annexures-A, B, C and D and production of certified copy of Annexure-E respectively is dispensed with. I.A.No.3/2023 is filed seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order. The same is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working under fifth respondent as Chief Officer. It is his contention that he has been suspended in terms of impugned order at Annexure-E. He would submit that, in the impugned order, there is no satisfaction recorded as required under Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957. It is also his contention that during the period in which it is alleged that there is less collection of tax, the petitioner was on Election Duty for three months and he worked in that place for the period of three months and it is contended that the order of suspension is extremely harsh and he is not presently working in the place where the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2279 WP No. 107540 of 2023 alleged misconduct has taken place. Considering the submission, I.A.No.3/2023 is allowed. The operation of impugned order at Annexure-E is stayed. However, there is no prohibition to proceed with the departmental enquiry.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would now project that the departmental enquiry that had to be concluded within six months in terms of the Rules 10(5) is not completed. Therefore the departmental enquiry itself is vitiated. The submission is noted only to be rejected as a contributor to the delay is the petitioner himself. 4. Learned HCGP would submit that on 18.09.2024 charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner seeking his reply for conduct of departmental enquiry. The petitioner replies on 22.11.2024 to the said charge-sheet two months after the receipt of the charge-sheet. Therefore, the delay, if at all in the case at hand is attributable to the petitioner himself. Therefore, the said submission does not merit any acceptance. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2279 WP No. 107540 of 2023 5. Insofar as the submission with regard to non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority as is necessary under the Rules 10(3) is concerned the said submission merits acceptance, as the order of suspension does not take into consideration what is necessary to taken note off as obtaining under the Rules 10(3), which reads as follows: “[(3) The authority competent to place a Government servant under suspension shall examine the relevant material relating to the case and consider whether there is prima facie evidence to support the charges made against the Government servant and it is satisfied on such examination that prima facie evidence exists, it may place the Government servant concerned under suspension.]” 6. The Rules 10(3) mandates that the competent authority shall consider the pros and cons of consider and then pass necessary orders of suspension, if at all the misconduct warrants placing the petitioner and replacing an employee under suspension. That satisfaction is absent in the order - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2279 WP No. 107540 of 2023 impugned. In that light, the order placing the petitioner under suspension stands obliterated. 7. It is made clear that, this Court has not pronounced upon pendency of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The order qua suspension of the petitioner. Learned-HCGP submit that the petitioner pursuant to the interim order has continued in service. Therefore, the submission is also noted. For the aforesaid the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2 stands quashed placing the petitioner suspension. Ordered Accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12