SRI. KEMPARAJAIAH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI.M.S DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS FROM THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED IN APPLICATION No. 4804/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.06.2026 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 4804/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION No. 4804/2025 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

02.06.2026 PASSED THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28744-DB WP No. 17047 of 2026 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner, a Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) is before this Court questioning the order dated

02.06.2026 in Application No.4804/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal has passed the following order: “The application is however disposed of with a direction to respondent to review the impugned order for either continuation or revocation of suspension as the case may be as per Rules. The said review be completed within 3 (Three) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Satish petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraj for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28744-DB WP No. 17047 of 2026 HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel Sri.K.Satish for petitioner would submit that the petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-A6) on the allegation of work duplication. It is submitted that in respect of the said incident of suspension, charge memo dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure-D) was issued to the petitioner. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that when the charge memo was issued to the petitioner on the next day of suspension, there was no necessity to continue the petitioner under suspension. It is his submission that once the charge memo is issued, the Disciplinary Authority would have collected all the material evidence, as such, there is no need to continue such Government servant under suspension. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the certificate at page 148, issued by the Project Director, Nirmithi Centre, Bengaluru Rural District, certifying that both the works have been implemented and there is no misuse of funds or irregularity in the work. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28744-DB WP No. 17047 of 2026 HC-KAR

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placing reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.LOKANATH R. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (W.P.No.22677/2024 DATED

12.12.2024) would contend that after the expiry of six months from the date of suspension, if there is no order of continuation of suspension then such suspension would automatically gets revoked. Learned counsel Sri.K.Satish would further contend that the Tribunal having recorded the finding that continuing the Government employee under suspension for a long period may not be justified, ought to have set aside the order of suspension. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate who has taken notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the order of the tribunal is to review the order of suspension and to take a decision either to continuing or revoke - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28744-DB WP No. 17047 of 2026 HC-KAR suspension. As such, he submits that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the said order.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, for the following reasons: The petitioner is kept under suspension by order dated 19.11.2025 and the allegation on the face of it, is very serious. Allegation of duplication of work would cause financial loss to the State. It is true that on the next day of suspension i.e., on 20.11.2025, articles of charge is issued in respect of the allegation on which, the petitioner was kept under suspension. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Sri.M.S.Devaraj during the course of hearing submitted that Enquiry Officer is also appointed by order dated 01.06.2026. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in directing the State Government to review the impugned order of - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28744-DB WP No. 17047 of 2026 HC-KAR suspension and to take decision either to continue or revoke the suspension as the case may be as per Rules. While directing review of suspension, the Tribunal has recorded that continued suspension becomes punitive in nature and the respondents have also not given any good reasons as to why the petitioner’s suspension is required to continue once charge sheet is issued.

7. In the light of the above, we do not find any justification or reason to interfere with impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel Sri.K.Satish placing reliance on the decision of SRI.LOKANATH R., (supra) submitted that in the absence of order extending suspension even after issuing of charge memo, order of suspension gets revoked cannot be applied to the present case in view of the fact that the Tribunal has already directed the respondents to review order of suspension either to continue or to revoke the suspension. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28744-DB WP No. 17047 of 2026 HC-KAR

9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of certificate issued by the Project Director, Nirmithi Centre, Bengaluru Rural District (Page 148) certifying that there is no duplication of work and there is no misuse of funds or irregularity in the implementation of the work, suspension requires to be set aside cannot be accepted. Under what circumstances such certificate is issued by the Project Director, Nirmithi Centre, Bengaluru Rural District is not known. However, it is to be noted that articles of charge is issued only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegation of duplication of work by the petitioner. When the enquiry is pending against the petitioner, the Project Director could not have issued such certificate.

10. The second respondent – the Commissioner, Karnataka Panchayath Raj Commissionerate, Department of Rural Development and Panchayath Raj shall enquire as to under what circumstances such certificate was issued - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28744-DB WP No. 17047 of 2026 HC-KAR by the Project Director, Nirmithi Centre, Bengaluru Rural District.

11. With the above, writ petition stands rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE NC CT: RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21