- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27949-DB WP No. 8161 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 8161 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR H .S. S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ ENQUIRY OFFICER, 1ST ZONE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, 1ST FLOOR, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003,. NOW UNDER AN ORDER OF SUSPENSION, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, BHEEMAIAH COLONY, B. M. ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO - OPERATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKA VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27949-DB WP No. 8161 of 2025 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO. 1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.03.2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION No. 52/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No. 52/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No. 52/2025 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY 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 RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal is before this Court, questioning the order dated 11.03.2025 in Application No.52/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27949-DB WP No. 8161 of 2025 “Tribunal”) whereunder, the request of the petitioner to quash the order of suspension dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-A23) is rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for petitioner, learned AGA Sri.Shivareddy for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Satish would submit that the petitioner is working as Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and he is kept under suspension by order dated 03.01.2025, alleging that there is delay in concluding the enquiry entrusted to him under Section 65 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1954. Learned counsel would submit that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 29.05.2024 and immediately thereafter, on 30.05.2024 he issued notice to the Federation. It is submitted that the Federation sought time on 10.06.2024 and 18.06.2024. Therefore, the petitioner is said to have sought three months extension of time to conclude the enquiry, by letter dated 25.07.2024. The respondents said to have extended the time till 29.08.2024 by communication dated 25.07.2024. It is submitted that subsequently, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27949-DB WP No. 8161 of 2025 Federation filed W.P.No.23075/2025 questioning initiation of enquiry and an interim order of stay of the enquiry by order dated 27.08.2024 in the said writ petition was granted. Learned counsel would submit that when the enquiry itself is stayed by this Court, the question of submitting report would not arise and the suspension is without application of mind and without examining as to whether there was interim order on the said enquiry or not. Learned counsel would further contend that the suspension is dated 03.01.2025 and even after more than one year, no charge memo is issued, as such, he submits that in terms of Rule 10(5) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 (for short “1957 Rules”) suspension gets revoked and the respondents ought to have reinstated the petitioner into service. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions would submit that no charge memo is issued to the petitioner till today and seeks for further time to issue charge memo. Learned AGA would submit that the petitioner kept on issuing notice without proceeding further with the enquiry when the Federation failed to submit documents and failed to proceed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27949-DB WP No. 8161 of 2025 against the Federation under Section 66 of 1959 Act. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The order of suspension is dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure-A23). Admittedly, till today, no charge memo is issued to the petitioner. Rule 10(5) of CCA Rules 1957 reads as follows: 10 (5) (a) Subject to sub-rule (3), where a competent authority in an organization authorized to investigate cases against Government servants under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act No.49 of 1988) or the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act 4 of 1985) finds during investigation that there is a prima facie evidence against a Government servant and recommends that he may be placed under suspension, the authority competent to place such a Government servant under suspension may place him under suspension. (b) If departmental inquiry is not commenced against the delinquent Government Servant or charge sheet is not filed in the court within a period of six months from suspension, the competent authority shall decide whether to revoke or continue suspension of such Government Servant and unless decided and ordered for continuation within this period, the suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked i.e., from the date of completion of a period of six months from the date of suspension. Upon such revocation of the order of his suspension, it shall be the duty of the Government servant to immediately seek order of posting from the Appointing Authority, failing which he shall be deemed to be on unauthorized absence with effect from the date of revocation of the order of his suspension. Provided that authority competent to place a Government Servant under suspension may extend the period of suspension beyond the period specified in this clause, only after consulting, within the said period, with the authority referred in clause (a) only if such authority - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27949-DB WP No. 8161 of 2025 recommends extension within the said period. otherwise, the order placing the Government Servant under suspension shall stand revoked automatically under this clause. In terms of the above, it was for the respondents – Authorities to issue charge memo within six months from the date of suspension of the petitioner. When the charge memo is not issued within the time stipulated under sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 of 1957 Rules, we do not propose to examine suspension on merits. Hence, the following order: 6. The impugned order of suspension dated 03.01.2025 bearing No.Dgï¹J¸ï/¹§âA¢-4/25/2024-25 (Annexure-A23) stands revoked, in terms of Rule 10(5) of 1957 Rules. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MPK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4