Karnataka High Court
Smt. B Jayalakshmi vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.13996/2020 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
IN TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HANURU,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 439.
NOW UNDER SUSPENSION,
RESIDING AT 7A/714,
MARUTHI NILAYA, 14TH CROSS,
OPPOSITE NAIDU GARDEN,
BASTHIPURA MAIN ROAD,
KOLLEGAL @ TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. THE COMMISSIONER
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VISHVESWARAIAH TOWERS,
9TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT,
D.C.COMPOUND,
CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A.R., AGA (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD.
31.7.2020 AT ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question
the order of suspension passed by the third respondent dated
31.07.2020.
2. Heard Sri.G.M.Ananda, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and Smt.Sharadamba.A.R., learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ
petition are as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as a Typist in Kollegal City
Municipal Council in 19.9.1999 and was promoted as a Second
Division Assistant with effect from 07.07.2007. She was later
transferred to Town Municipal Council, Hanur and reported to
duty on 22.07.2019.
4. While working as Second Division Assistant at Town
Municipal Council, Hanur, she was placed under suspension by
an order dated 31.07.2020. Being aggrieved by the order of
suspension, petitioner filed W.P.No.9536/2020 and this Court
dismissed the writ petition on 15.09.2020 reserving liberty to
the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of suspension,
pursuant to which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
competent authority, which is pending consideration.
5. It is admitted by the learned Additional Government
Advocate representing the respondents that no charge sheet is
issued against the petitioner after the order of suspension
dated 31.07.2020.
6. The suspension of the petitioner cannot continue
beyond three months in the event charge sheet is not issued
within three months from the date of placing a Government
servant under suspension, in the light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the judgment of AJAY KUMAR
CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein it is held as follows:
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of
a suspension order should not extend beyond three
months if within this period the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order
must be passed for the extension of the
suspension. As in the case in hand, the
Government is free to transfer the person
concerned to any department in any of its offices
within or outside the State so as to sever any local
or personal contact that he may have and which he
may misuse for obstructing the investigation
against him. The Government may also prohibit
him from contacting any person, or handling
records and documents till the stage of his having
to prepare his defence. We think this will
adequately safeguard the universally recognised
principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy
trial and shall also preserve the interest of the
Government in the prosecution. We recognise that
the previous Constitution Benches have been
reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of
delay, and to set time-limits to their duration.
However, the imposition of a limit on the period of
suspension has not been discussed in prior case
law, and would not be contrary to the interests of
justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central
Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal
investigation, departmental proceedings are to be
held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the
stand adopted by us."
7. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the
Apex Court as extracted hereinabove and the undisputed fact
that charge sheet is not issued, the writ petition deserves to
succeed. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of suspension passed by the
third respondent bearing No.PauNi/Ga.Sam.280352/
DMA/ENQ-2/MYS/28/2020 dated 31.07.2020 is
quashed.
(iii) The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt
of the copy of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
