- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:368 WP No. 107568 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 107568 OF 2018 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SRI. RAVINDRA S/O. DYAMAPPA BAGALKOTI AGED: 33 YEARS, OCC: CHIEF OFFICER, T.M.C. LAKSHMESHWRA, R/O: LAKSHMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, SRI. VINAY S.KOUJALAGI, SRI. ANAND ASHTEKAR AND SRI. K.H.BAGI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ROOM NO.123, DIST. ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, GADAG-582101. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG, BEARING NO. JINAKO/SIBBANDI/ VICHARANE/VAHI/55/2018-19, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.19 11:10:59 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:368 WP No. 107568 of 2018 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a government servant working as a Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council, Lakshmeshwar, has called in question the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag, placing him under suspension. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Health Inspector by the Director of Municipal Administration in the year 2006. During the period from 26.07.2014 to 25.05.2017, he worked as a Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Ron on own pay scale basis and thereafter was transferred to TMC, Lakshmeshwar. 3. While the petitioner was serving at Lakshmeshwar, a show-cause notice dated 09.10.2018 came to be issued by the Project Director, District Urban Cell, Gadag, alleging irregularities with the engagement of contract labour on outsourcing basis during his tenure at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:368 WP No. 107568 of 2018 Ron, particularly in relation to issuance of tender and non- compliance with the prescribed procedure. The petitioner claims that he sought time and relevant records to submit an effective reply, but before the same could be considered, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned suspension order dated 16.11.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Contentions of petitioner : (i) The Deputy Commissioner is not the appointing authority of the petitioner and therefore lacks jurisdiction to pass an order of suspension. (ii) The suspension order is passed without considering the petitioner's request for time and without supplying necessary documents, thereby violating principles of natural justice. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:368 WP No. 107568 of 2018 (iii) There was no complaint, audit, objections or material to warrant suspension and the action is arbitrary and punitive in nature. (iv) Rule 10(2A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules 1957, [<KCS (CCA) Rules= for short] does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to suspend the petitioner. (v) The impugned order is passed with a predetermined mind, only to harass the petitioner and tarnish his service career. 5. Contentions of the Respondents : (i) The writ petition is not maintainable either on facts or law. (ii) The petitioner, though appointed by the Director of Municipal Administration, was functioning as a Chief Officer under the administrative control and supervision of the Deputy Commissioner, and he is a 8C9 class employee. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:368 WP No. 107568 of 2018 (iii) A showcase notice was duly served, opportunity was granted and therefore principles of natural justice were complied with. (iv) Under Rule 10(1)(d) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, any authority to which the employee subordinate or any authority employed by the government can place a government servant under suspension. (v) A Gazette Notification dated 20.11.2020 accords power to the Deputy Commissioner to suspend 8C9 and 8D9 cadre employees. (vi) The petitioner failed to follow the mandatory procedure and circulars in governing outsourcing of contract labour, including prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner, thereby justifying disciplinary action. 6. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and the material on record, the following aspects emerge clearly. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:368 WP No. 107568 of 2018 (i) The suspension order dated 16.11.2018 is found solely on a showcase notice and has continued for several years without any progress in disciplinary proceedings. (ii) While it is open for the respondents to seek an explanation and examine the alleged irregularities, continuation of suspension in absence of prima facie material is unsustainable, which results in violation of principles of fairness, hardship to the employee and colour of punishment without adjudication. (iii) The showcase notice is a proposal to seek an explanation and does not amount to evidence or material establishing misconduct. Except the said notice and reference to general circulars governing procedures, the respondents have not produced any tangible material, such as 1) preliminary enquiry or fact-finding report. 2) An audit objections or finding of financial loss. 3) Specific - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:368 WP No. 107568 of 2018 tender documents showing violation, or 4) A charge memo even after the lapse of several years. 7. In the absence of such material, this Court holds that a showcase notice by itself does not constitute a prima facie material to justify suspension. 8. While it is open for the respondents to seek an explanation and examine the alleged irregularities, continuation of suspension in absence of prima facie material is unsustainable. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order of suspension dated 16.11.2018 is hereby set aside. iii. The respondents are directed to consider the objections/reply submitted by the petitioner through the showcase notice and thereafter take decision in accordance with law as to whether disciplinary proceedings are required to be initiated. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:368 WP No. 107568 of 2018 iv. If the competent authority, upon such consideration, finds sufficient material, it shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. v. Pending such consideration, the petitioner shall be reinstated. vi. The observations made herein are confined only to the validity of the suspension order and shall not be construed expression on the merits of the allegation. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59