- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31472 WP No. 17076 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 17076 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI RAJESH S B S/O LATE BOREGOWDA S N AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER AND INCHARGE, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NITTUR SANTHE STREET, BESCOM SUB DIVISION OFFICE R/AT NO S B EXTENSION GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BAJANTRI VIJAYKUMAR VITHALRAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31472 WP No. 17076 of 2026 3. THE DIRECTOR(ADMN AND HR) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALRUU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SRI. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 (VK FILED FOR R2 & R3)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (1) TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. KA VI PRA NI NI/B54/76907/2025-26 DATED 29.5.2026 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-G) AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. (II) TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO SERVICE FORTHWITH WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND (III) TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31472 WP No. 17076 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: (i) To call for the records relating to issue of the impugned order bearing No. Ka Vi Pra Ni Ni/B54/76907/2025-26 dated 29.5.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent (vide Annexure-G) and after perusal set aside the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned. (ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to service forthwith with all consequential benefits; and (iii) To pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner has challenged his order of suspension on the ground that the petitioner worked at O & M Gubbi Sub-Division from 27.08.2020 to 21.03.2024. He was transferred to Nittur Sub-Division and is presently working outside of the mischief area. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31472 WP No. 17076 of 2026 Hence, the order of suspension is contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal1. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 3. The respondents have not filed the statement of objections. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been transferred to Nittur Sub Division and is not presently working in the mischief area viz., Gubbi Sub Division. Hence, he could not have been placed under suspension in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of 1 (2013) 16 SCC 147 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31472 WP No. 17076 of 2026 India2. Hence, the said order of suspension is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of punishment is not punitive in nature. The petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allowance. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. The scope of judicial review is limited in case of suspension for the reason that passing of suspension order is of an administrative nature and suspension is not a punishment. Its purpose is to only forbid the delinquent to work in the office and it is in the exclusive domain of the employer to revoke the 2 (2015) 7 SCC 291 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31472 WP No. 17076 of 2026 suspension order. The Tribunal or the court cannot function as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority in these regards. 9. Admittedly, the order of suspension was issued by the appointing authority. The order of suspension can be challenged only on grounds, if the order of suspension is issued by an incompetent authority and mala fide. 10. Admittedly, in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension is passed by an incompetent authority. 11. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31472 WP No. 17076 of 2026 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that a charge memo will be issued to the petitioner within 2 weeks from today and thereafter, the enquiry will be concluded within a period of 6 months from the date of issuing the charge memo. 14. Submission is placed on record. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32