- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52880-DB WP No. 26189 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 26189 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (SERVICE-A), VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT., WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, (SERVICE-A) VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA ., AGA) AND: K K RAGHUPATHI S/O KAPINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, HARANGI PROJECT CIRCLE, KUSHALANAGARA, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234 Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52880-DB WP No. 26189 of 2025 RESIDING AT NO.4226, ESHA, VIJAYANAGARA, IV STAGE, II PHASE, MYSURU-570 032. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P PRITHVI KIRAN SETTY., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.3515/2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 11/11/2024; b) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2024 IN APPLICATION NO.3515/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 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:52880-DB WP No. 26189 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The respondent, while he was working as a Superintendent Engineer, Harangi Project Circle, is kept under suspension by the second petitioner with the order dated 16.07.2024. The respondent has called in question this order with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in Application No.3515/2024. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 has allowed this application directing the respondent's immediate reinstatement observing that the respondent would be entitled to all the consequential financial and service benefits in accordance with law. 2. The Tribunal's direction on the respondent's cause is because this Court has quashed the FIR in Crime No. 11/2023 in a Criminal Petition in Crl. P. No.413/2024 on 25.04.2024. The Tribunal, opining that the petitioners' order is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52880-DB WP No. 26189 of 2025 without application of mind, has concluded that the respondent could not have been kept under suspension for over ten months from the quashing of the FIR. Sri Vikas Rojipura, a learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners, submits that there is a factual error in the Tribunal opining that there is delay in keeping the respondent under suspension and that the decision is based on the circumstances as assessed by the second petitioner in law. 3. Sri Vikas Rojipura canvasses that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in 'B C Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others'1, the delay can never be a reason to quash departmental proceedings and if delay cannot be a reason to quash departmental proceedings, the continuance of an officer under suspension, which is in aid of the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, cannot be interfered with on 1 [1995] 6 SCC 749 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52880-DB WP No. 26189 of 2025 the ground of delay. The proposition put forward by Sri Vikas Rojipura and the merits thereof can be examined in an appropriate case but for the present the following indisputable facts would be material. 4. The recommendation to keep the respondent under suspension is on 21.09.2023, but the decision is taken on 16.07.2024. This could be crucial as would be this Court's decision to quash the FIR on 25.04.2024. More importantly, the respondent is reinstated in the month of August 2024 when the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to maintain status quo as regards the respondent's service. The respondent has continued in service by virtue of such order until the Tribunal's impugned order on 11.11.2024, and the respondent continues to be in service in the last year and more. 5. In the light of these circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the Tribunal's impugned order and the petition stands - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52880-DB WP No. 26189 of 2025 disposed of observing that no opinion is rendered on the proposition canvassed by Sri Vikas Rojipura as that could be considered in an appropriate case. It would be needless to observe that the outcome in these proceedings cannot impede any initiation of proceedings that would be permissible under law against the respondent. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-