- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29562-DB WP No. 17798 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH 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. 17798 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. M. SHARASCHCHANDRA BABU S/O LATE B. MUNIYAPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.102, 2ND FLOOR PALLAVA TERRACR APARTMENT JAYANAGAR 6TH BLOCK BANASHANKARI II STAGE KANAKAPURA NORTH MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 070 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VAIBHAV MALIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY BANGALORE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29562-DB WP No. 17798 of 2026 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20/05/2026 (ANNEXURE-D) IN SO FAR AS IT FAILS TO GRANT THE AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE INTERIM RELIEF TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN. 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 RAJESH RAI K) In this writ petition the petitioner assailed the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') in Application No.2579/2026. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is working as Social Security Scheme Shirastedar, Taluk Office, Bangalore Dakshina Taluk, Bangalore City District and based on the complaint, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and thereafter, the disciplinary authority-respondent No.2 has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29562-DB WP No. 17798 of 2026 suspended the petitioner vide order dated 30.04.2026 in Order No.RCB/TAHB/CCA/28/2026. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. 3. Challenging the same the petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal and sought an interim prayer to stay the suspension order before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondent/State to file reply statement to the interim prayer. The said order has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension order is not in accordance with law and the disciplinary authority has not considered the Rule 10(3) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for brevity, 'the CCA Rules, 1957') and not examined the materials and allegations raised against the petitioner. As such, the same is bad in law. Hence, the said order has to be set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29562-DB WP No. 17798 of 2026 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that despite issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, he failed to respond to the show cause notice. As such, the authority has rightly passed the suspension order. 7. We have given our anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the suspension order and other documents on record. 8. As could be gathered from the suspension order, sufficient opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to response on the allegations made against him. However, he failed to do so. In such circumstance, left with no other option the authority has passed the order of suspension. At present, the petitioner has already challenged the same and the matter is pending for adjudication before the Tribunal. At this stage we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 10(3) of the CCA Rules, 1957 is not complied with, hence, we are declined to allow this writ petitioner by granting an interim prayer. However, a week's time granted to the learned Additional Government Advocate to file his statement of objection if any before the Tribunal and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29562-DB WP No. 17798 of 2026 thereafter, the Tribunal shall consider the main prayer of the petitioner in accordance with law at the earliest. With this direction the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10