1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.37487/2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: PRAKASH M YATTINAMANI S/O MAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR JAYAPURA POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT-570008 PRESENTLY UNDER SUSPENSION DATED 28.06.2025 RESIDING AT NO.1444 F-BLOCK, DATTAGAHALLI NEAR ADITYA CIRCLE MYSURU – 570096. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME 2 VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTH DIVISION MYSURU – 571107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI R PRAMOD, ADV. FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT (IN IA 1/2026)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, IN APPLICATION NO.3091/2025 AT ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.3091/2025, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND B) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 31.01.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND 3 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2025 in Application No.3091/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) refusing to interfere with the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 28.06.2025 (Annexure-A) is before this Court in this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.R.Pramod for the proposed respondent in I.A.No.1/2026. 3. Learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa for petitioner files memo dated 31.01.2026 enclosing 4 order dated 04.12.2025 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Zone, Mysuru, whereunder the suspension of the petitioner under order dated 28.06.2025 is revoked pending disciplinary proceedings. 4. In view of the revocation of the order of suspension, the main prayer of the petitioner to quash the order of suspension would no more survive. 5. Learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa would submit that the petitioner was suspended under order dated 28.06.2025 for an incident which had taken place when he was working at Bettadapura Police Station. At the time of keeping the petitioner under suspension, it is stated that the petitioner was working as Police Sub-Inspector, Jayapura Police Station, Mysuru District. Subsequently, by order dated 30.06.2025 the lien of the petitioner was shifted to 5 Bilikere Police Station. On the same day i.e., 30.06.2025, the proposed respondent Sri.Kalegowda, Sub-Inspector of Police was posted to Jayapura Police Station in place of the petitioner. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on revocation of suspension, the petitioner ought to be given posting at Jayapura Police Station and he would be entitled for posting to the same place in which, the petitioner was kept under suspension. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was not kept under suspension for an incident at Jayapura Police Station. However, the petitioner was kept under suspension for an incident which had taken place when he was working at Bettadapura Police Station. In that regard, he would submit that along with the petitioner, one Sri.Mahesh Kumar.B.K., Sub-Inspector of Police, was also kept under suspension who was working at Ilwala Police 6 Station, Mysuru District and in his case, this Court in W.P.No.33384/2025 while allowing the application directed respondent to issue appropriate orders to enable the petitioner therein to report to his post within a week. 7. The petitioner herein and the petitioner in W.P.No.33384/2025 both were kept under suspension under common order dated 28.06.2025. Both of them approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal rejected their applications questioning the order of suspension. Both of them challenged the said order of the Tribunal before this Court in separate writ petitions. While quashing the order of suspension of Sri.Mahesh Kumar.B.K., in W.P.No.33384/2025 dated 11.11.2025 at paragraphs 9 and 10, this Court has observed as follows: “9. The second respondent, without a detailed reference to the petitioner's part in the 7 investigation and the Sessions Court's observation, has formed an opinion on keeping the petitioner under suspension, and this Court must also opine that, with the lapse of time and the petitioner being posted outside the limits of Bettadapura police station, he will definitely be outside the mischief zone and the second respondent should also have considered this in deciding to keep the petitioner under suspension. 10. These are material circumstances that the Tribunal should have considered, and this justifies interference by this Court. At this stage, this Court must refer to the petitioner's case that the second respondent has not invoked the power under the Police Rules and such exercise is under the General Service Rules, but this Court, on a detailed perusal of the terms of the second respondent's order dated 28.06.2025, is of the definite opinion that decision is under Police Rules and the reference to the terms to the General Service Rules is only for mentioning the benefit that the petitioner would be entitled to while under suspension and the terms that would govern 8 the petitioner's conduct while under suspension. Therefore, there is no interference on this ground.” 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura places on record along with memo dated 31.01.2026 Circular dated 28.06.2024 issued by the Home Department wherein it is stated that while revoking the suspension, the suspended official shall not be posted to the place where the incident had taken place or to the same post or to sensitive/executive post that too, when suspension is revoked pending enquiry and as far as possible such officers shall be posted to non-executive post. 9. However, in the instant case, suspension of the petitioner is on the incident which had taken place at Bettadapura Police Station while the petitioner was working as Police Sub-Inspector. However, at the time of suspension, the petitioner was working as Sub- 9 Inspector of Police at Jayapura Police Station. On his suspension lien was shifted to Bilikere, for the reasons best known to the authorities. 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of co-accused’s suspension, while quashing the suspension order has made an observation that the petitioner therein was outside the mischief zone and the respondent authorities ought to have considered the said aspect. 11. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition stands disposed of. b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 more particularly, respondent No.2–Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range Division, Mysuru is directed to consider posting of petitioner on revocation of his suspension as Sub- 10 Inspector of Police, Jayapura Police Station, where the petitioner was working as on the date of suspension in the light of the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.33384/2025 dated 11.11.2025 and Circular dated 28.06.2024 bearing No.ME 31 ¥Éƹ¥À 2020 and pass appropriate order within 15 days from the date of this order. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT: bms