- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 19241 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (DPAR) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV. A/W SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG AND SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA) AND: MR. VIKASH KUMAR VIKASH, IPS, (KN-2004) S/O. PRABHU NARAYAN RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS INSPECTOR GENERAL AND ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WEST, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560 001, FLAT NO. S3/S4, 2ND FLOOR, K.L. BLOCK, GOLDEN ORCHID APARTMENT, OPERATIVE PORTION Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, LABELLED ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. FOR SRI DHANUSH MENON, ADV. FOR R1) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A). CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OA NO.261 OF 2025 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH AT BENGALURU; B). ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE FINAL ORDER DATED 01.07.2025 IN OA NO. 261 OF 2025 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This writ petition filed by the State Authorities under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 01.07.2025 in O.A.No.170/00261/2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘CAT’), allowing the respondent’s O.A., wherein he had questioned the order keeping him under suspension by order dated 05.06.2025 in exercise of power under Rule 3(1)(a) of the All India - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short, ‘1969 Rules’). 2. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal along with learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for petitioners-State Authorities and learned senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa along with Sri.Dhanush Menon for respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The respondent, a Senior Indian Police Service Officer of the Karnataka Cadre, holding the post of Inspector General and Additional Commissioner of Police, West, Bengaluru City was kept under suspension under Rule 3(1)(a) of 1969 Rules along with four others, alleging violation of All India Service (Conduct) Rules. The respondent approached the CAT in O.A.No.170/00261/2025 questioning the said order of suspension and the CAT vide impugned order dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 01.07.2025 (Annexure-A), allowed the O.A and passed the following order: “30. Therefore, (i) We allow the present petition, and quash the order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure-A3) in relation to the suspension of Shri Vikash Kumar Vikash (IPS, Inspector General & Additional Commissioner of Police, West, Bengaluru City). (ii) The respondents are directed to re- instate the aforesaid applicant immediately. (iii) The period of suspension will be treated as duty with full pay and allowances.” 4. Questioning the above order passed by the CAT dated 01.07.2025 in O.A.No.170/00261/2025, the petitioners who were respondents before the CAT are before this Court in this writ petition. 5. The above writ petition was taken up for hearing and the same was heard on 17.07.2025, 18.07.2025, 21.07.2025 and 25.07.2025. On 25.07.2025, the writ petition was posted to 01.08.2025 for further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 hearing. In the meanwhile, the respondent had submitted representation requesting to revoke the order of suspension. When the matter was listed on 01.08.2025, on behalf of the petitioners-State Authorities, memo dated 01.08.2025 was filed enclosing Government order bearing No.DPAR 133 SPS 2025 dated 31.07.2025, wherein, the suspension of the respondent was revoked in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 3(7)(c) of 1969 Rules and the respondent was reinstated into service pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of 1969 Rules. 6. In view of the revocation of the order of suspension and reinstating the respondent into service by providing posting to the respondent as Inspector General of Police, Internal Security Division, Bengaluru, both the learned senior counsels appearing for the parties submit that the writ petition would no more survive for consideration. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 7. Submission of the learned senior counsels is placed on record. 8. However, learned senior counsel Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa would submit that the period of suspension requires to be regularized as directed by the CAT by treating the said period as, on duty. 9. Learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal for petitioners-State Authorities by referring to Rule 3(7)(c) as well as Rule 5B(6) and 5B(7) of 1969 Rules would submit that regulating the period of suspension would depend on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings that is contemplated against the respondent. 10. Rule 5B(6) and 5B(7) of 1969 Rules reads as follows: “5B(6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalization of the disciplinary proceeding or proceedings in a Court any order passed under sub- rule(1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the member of the Service, shall be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub- rule (1) who shall make an order in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5), as the case may be. 5B(7) In a case falling under sub-rule (5) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the authority competent to order reinstatement specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose: Provided that if the member of the Service so desires such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the member of the Service. ” 11. The operative portion of the order of revoking suspension of the respondent dated 31.07.2025 reads as follows: “GOVERNMENT ORDER No. DPAR 133 SPS 2025, BENGALURU, DATED:31.07.2025 In view of the facts and circumstances explained in the preamble, the Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 3(7)(c) of All India Services (Discipline - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 and Appeal) Rules, 1969, hereby revokies the order of suspension of Sri. Vikash Kumar Vikash, IPS (KN: 2004) and reinstates into service with immediate effect, pending the initiation of Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Further, Sri. Vikash Kumar Vikash, IPS (KN: 2004) is posted with immediate effect and until further orders as Inspector General of Police, Internal Security Division, Bengaluru in the vacant post.” 12. On perusal of the above order, it is clear that the revocation of suspension of the respondent into service is pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings under 1969 Rules. Therefore, in terms of Rule 5B(6) and 5B(7) of 1969 Rules, regularizing the period of suspension would depend on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings that is contemplated against the respondent. 13. It is needless to observe that the contemplated disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated by the petitioners-State Authorities within the period prescribed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31542-DB WP No. 19241 of 2025 under the 1969 Rules or within three months from the date of order of suspension. Failing to initiate disciplinary proceedings would entitle the respondent to seek regularization of the period of suspension. 14. With the above modification to the order of CAT dated 01.07.2025 in O.A.No.170/00261/2025, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms