- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 31579 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVANAND MARAKERI S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SASALU GRAM PANCHAYAT, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, R/AT NO. 1092, 10TH BLOCK, JPH APARTMENT, ALLALASANDRA, G.K.V.K. BENGALURU-560 065. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR B O.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEVELOPMENT, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025 K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA, CHAPPARADA KALLU, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 IN A.No-4365/2025 PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU BENCH BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner was working as a Panchayat Development Officer [PDO] with Sasalu Grama Panchayth, Doddaballapur Taluk, and the petitioner’s grievance is with the third respondent -Disciplinary Authority's order dated 09.10.2025 under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 to keep him under suspension. The petitioner's application as against this order with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] in Application No.4365/2025 is pending consideration. The petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the Tribunal has refused to grant the petitioner ex-parte stay of the order of suspension. 2. The Disciplinary Authority has issued the impugned order on receipt of the communication - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025 from the Chief Executive Officer [the second respondent], and the second respondent has referred to a video clip circulating on the social media to allege that the petitioner, while he was working as PDO with the Hardipura Grama Panchayat, Doddaballapur, had received certain illegal gratification for the work related to transfer of Khata for an immovable property. 3. Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that [i] the allegation against the petitioner is based on a video clipping seen by the Chief Executive Officer and not by the Disciplinary Authority, [ii] it is the Disciplinary Authority who had to be satisfied that there was prima facie case for keeping the petitioner under suspension and [iii] that the Disciplinary Authority could not have simply acted upon the intimation or communication by the Chief Executive Officer. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025 4. If Sri B.O. Anil Kumar emphasizes the following and contends that not even a complaint is registered against the petitioner and the decision is politically motivated, Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, submits that [i] the Tribunal is yet to decide on the petitioner's request for interim order, [ii] the application is scheduled to be listed with the Tribunal on 30.10.2025, [iii] on 30.10.2025, the Tribunal can examine the petitioner's grievance with opportunity to the respondents to place on record all the details which are prima facie examined for the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension. 5. At the outset, this Court must observe that the Tribunal is yet to decide on the merits of the petitioner's request for interim order. If the Disciplinary Authority is duly represented on the next date of hearing, the Tribunal must consider the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025 petitioner's request for interim order in the light of the grounds urged and the material that could be placed on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. As such, this Court is not inclined at this stage to interfere except to request the Tribunal to decide the petitioner's request for interim order on 30.10.2025 and in any event, to dispose of the petitioner's application on merits by 14.11.2025. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NV