- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 18137 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SANGAYYA YANKANCHI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ASST. LINEMEN, BESCOM, HOLALKERE O AND M, SUB-DIVISION HOLALKERE, CHITRADURGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 KOUSHALYA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, KOUSHALYA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), BESCOM, CHITRADURGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R5 (VK FILED FOR R5); SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.05.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN NO. NO.KANILM (VI) LEA/SALEAA/HISA(C)/25- 26/1055-55 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 AND ALSO QUASH THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN NO.KANIIM(VI)LEA/SALEAA/HISA(C)/25-26/CYS-32 OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: I) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 03.05.2025 vide annexure-E in No. KaNiI(Vi) Lea/SaLeAa/HiSa(C)/25-26/1055- 55 passed by the respondent No.5 and also quash the suspension order dated 05.06.2025 issued by the office of the 5th respondent in No. KaNiIm(Vi) Lea/SaLeAa/HiSa(C)/25-26/CYS-32 of the petitioner vide Annexure-G; II) Quash the Committee Report of the 4th respondent dated 28.03.2025 in No.KaiTaU/Ta/VruPaVi/NaiJaTe/ViVa- 179/2017-18 vide Annexure-C as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Art-14 and 21 of the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 Constitution of India; in respect of the petitioner. III) After quashing the impugned suspension order dated 05.06.2025 vide Annexure-G, direct the 5th respondent to reinstate the petitioner into his original post with all consequential benefits arising out of the suspension order; IV) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lineman in the respondent department. The recruitment of the employee was made, inter alia, on the basis of marks obtained in ITI certificate course. Later the petitioner has also been made permanent as he had successfully completed his probation. The respondents sent the marks card to the department for verification and the department has submitted a report stating that the marks card of the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 petitioner was not genuine. On the basis of the report, the petitioner was kept under suspension to hold departmental enquiry. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of suspension, filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was kept under suspension for more than six months and suspension has not been extended in writing. He submits that if it is not extended in writing as per proviso to Rule 10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules 1957, that the competent authority may extend the period of suspension beyond the period specified in the clause, only after consulting, within the said period, with the authority referred in clause (a) only if such authority recommends extension within the said period. Otherwise, the order - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 placing the Government servant under suspension shall stand revoked automatically under this clause. 5. He also submits that in an identical matter, similarly placed employees approached this Court in WP No. 46307/2018 and other connected matters. He submits that in the said writ petition, the Government servant was dismissed from service. The said writ petition came to be allowed. He submits that the respondents aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid petition, preferred an appeal in Writ Appeal No. 261 of 2020 and connected matters and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2020. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order, and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working in the respondent department. The petitioner has submitted the marks card. On the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner, he was appointed as an Assistant Lineman. The respondents without holding an enquiry had passed an order of suspension. The order of suspension passed on 05.06.2025 vide Annexure-G. The order of suspension was passed on 17.12.2024 and 23.12.2024 was challenged by similarly placed petitioners in W.A.No.261 of 2020. The Division Bench has recorded its finding in paragraph No.19, which reads as follows: “19. It is needless to observe that all the respondents/employees who have not yet been reinstated shall be reinstated into service within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, if not already reinstated. This direction is being issued since the appellants have already reinstated twelve employees and therefore, having regard to the principle of parity, all the respondents/ employees shall be reinstated, if not already - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 reinstated. It is further directed that the said reinstatement is subject to the result of the enquiry and any benefit that they have received the consequential to the reinstatement shall also be subject to the result of the enquiry except the salary that would receive for serving in the appellants company. To that extent, the impugned order is modified.” 9. The Division Bench has directed the respondent company to reinstate all the employees, wherein an enquiry is pending. The respondent did not comply with the observation made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ appeal. 10. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents have not reinstated the petitioner into service. The respondents have not passed any order of continuation of order of suspension. In view of the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 and another1 held at paragraph No.8, which reads as follows: 8. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay. 11. The impugned order passed by the respondents is contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (referred supra). 12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: 1 (2015) 7 SCC 291 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order is hereby quashed. iii. The respondent/ Disciplinary Authority is directed to hold further enquiry and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. iv. Smt. Premavathi Managoli, a retired District Judge is appointed as an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry regarding the marks card submitted by the petitioner and submit a report to the disciplinary authority within 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits within eight - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010404412025 NC: 2026:KHC:39087 WP No. 18137 of 2025 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. vi. Insofar as the consequential benefits are concerned, that is subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. vii. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. viii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge Prayer- B, if so, need arises. ix. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS