- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2541-DB WP No. 887 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 887 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: DR. SHUHABUDDIN S/O LATE G. K. ALTAFF HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION) DHANVANTHRI ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. NOW WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT UNANI HOSPITAL, RAMANAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. (THROUGH VC)) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2541-DB WP No. 887 of 2026 DHANVANTHRI ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS; 1). SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2025 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.3876/2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND 2.PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION. 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for petitioner through video conference and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 2. The petitioner was before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.3876/2025 questioning the order of suspension dated 22.08.2025 and to direct the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2541-DB WP No. 887 of 2026 respondent authorities to continue him in the place where he was working. During the pendency of the application, the State Government i.e., respondent No.1 under Government Order bearing No.DPÀÄPÀ 368 ¦nr 2025, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.09.2025 (Annexure-C) revoked the order of suspension, subject to the final outcome of Application No.3876/2025 pending before the Tribunal. The operative portion of the Government order dated 30.09.2025 revoking suspension reads as follows: “¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ DqÀ½vÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ Cfð ¸ÀASÉå:3876/2025gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.09.2025 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀÄzsÀåAvÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ CAwªÀÄ wæð£À µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀwÛ£À°ègÀĪÀ qÁ.±ÀºÀ§Ä¢Ýãï, ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ (AiÀÄÄ£Á¤) EªÀgÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¸Áܦ¹ DzÉò¹zÉ. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2541-DB WP No. 887 of 2026 ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ Pˤì°AUï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸ÀܼÀ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, DAiÀÄĵï E¯ÁSÉ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ.” 3. A reading of the above would clearly indicate that in view of the interim order dated 02.09.2025 passed in Application No.3876/2025, first respondent revoked the suspension, subject to the outcome of the Application and continued the petitioner in service. When the same was produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal under impugned order disposed of the application observing that as the respondents themselves have revoked the suspension order by an administrative order, the status of suspension ends and further it observed that in view of the facts and circumstances and subsequent development, the application is dismissed being infructuous. 4. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the application as having become infructuous. The order of revocation of suspension itself makes it clear that the revocation is subject to the outcome of Application No.3876/2025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2541-DB WP No. 887 of 2026 before the Tribunal and the revocation of suspension is to comply with the interim order of stay of suspension. When the suspension is revoked subject to outcome of pending application, it is not known how the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that application has become infructuous. 5. When the suspension is revoked subject to the outcome of pending application, the application pending before the Tribunal would not become infructuous and suspension would not come to an end. The suspension would come to an end only upon final decision of the application pending before the Tribunal and that revocation is only to comply interim order passed by the Tribunal. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal misdirected itself to properly understand the order of revocation of suspension, which led to filing of this writ petition. 6. In the above circumstances, we pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2541-DB WP No. 887 of 2026 ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Order dated 09.12.2025 in Application No.3876/2025 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is set aside and the Application is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the same on merits. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4