Karnataka High Court
Dr. Bannappa Patil vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 18 April, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
WP No.200920 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.200920 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
DR. BANNAPPA PATIL
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE
MADANA HIPPARAGA
TALUKA: ALAND
DISTRICT : KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE
NO.105, 1ST FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
AROGYA SOUDHA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
WP No.200920 of 2024
5TH FLOOR, MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023.
3. THE DIVISIONAL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
KALABURAGI DIVISION
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
4. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER
KALABURAGI
DISTRICT: KALABURAGI -585 101.
5. THE TALUKA HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER
TALUKA ALAND
DISTRICT: KALABURAGI - 585 302.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, A.G.A.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 26.03.2024 IN A.NO.20782/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-D
AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.08.2023 IN
NO.DPG/GUVI-2/KALABURAGI/43/2022-23 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-A15 OF THE
APPLICATION AND PASS ANY SUCH ORDER OR ORDERS AS
DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
WP No.200920 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated
26.03.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in
Application No.20782/2023 whereby the application filed
by the petitioner was dismissed confirming the order of
suspension dated 03.08.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner is that when he was
working as an Administrative Medical Officer at Community
Health Center, Madanhipparga, Aland Taluk, Kalaburagi
district, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have issued a show cause
notice on 25.06.2022 for the allegations of unauthorized
absence from duty on 27.01.2022, 28.01.2022 and
29.01.2022, etc., Pursuant to the said notice, the
petitioner has submitted his reply on 28.06.2022. Being
not satisfied with the reply, the respondent No.5 issued
one more show cause notice to the petitioner on
01.07.2022. Again the petitioner has submitted his
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
explanation for the second show cause notice. On
08.07.2022, one more show cause notice was issued by
the fourth respondent. The notices were issued to the
applicant on different allegations and to each and every
allegation, the applicant has given his reply. Being not
satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the
respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order of
suspension on 03.08.2023 pending departmental enquiry.
By exercising power under Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka
Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules') the
petitioner has been suspended. Even after six months, no
enquiry has been commenced, even charge memo has not
been issued and no order is passed for extension of
suspension period. In view of Rule 10(5)(b) of the Rules,
the respondents have not given posting to the petitioner.
Hence, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal. The
Tribunal by order dated 26.03.2024 dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
3. Smt.Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel
for the petitioner has contended that suspension order has
been passed on 03.08.2023 pending departmental
enquiry, no charge memo has been issued even after
expiry of six months and no further order has been issued
for extension of suspension. In view of Rule 10(5)(b) of
the Rules, the respondents have to give a posting to the
petitioner. Since no posting has been given as on today,
the petitioner has approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal
contrary to the provisions of Rule 10(5) of the Rules, has
dismissed the application. In support of her contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
AJAYKUMAR CHOUDHARY VS.UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER [(2015)7
SCC 291]. Hence, she sought for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent-State contended
that the allegation made against the petitioner is of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
serious nature. Being a responsible Administrative Medical
Officer in the Community Health Center, he was
unauthorisedly absent from the service and the same has
not been disputed by him. Further, he has not disputed
that charge memo is not issued and enquiry has not yet
commenced. He has also submitted that the respondents
have not passed any order for extension of suspension
period.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ papers.
6. When the petitioner was working as an
Administrative Medical Officer at Community Health
Center, Madanhipparaga, Aland Taluk, Kalaburagi District,
the respondent No.2 has passed the order of suspension
on 03.08.2023 pending departmental enquiry, the
petitioner has been kept under suspension. Even after
completion of period of six months, the departmental
enquiry has not been commenced and charge memo has
not been issued. Even as per Rule 10(5)(b) of the Rules,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
no further order has been passed for extension of
suspension period. For better understanding, Rule 10(5) of
the Rules is extracted below:
"10. Suspension.- (1) xxxx
(2) xxxx
(3) xxxx
(4) xxxx (omitted)
(5) (a) Subject to sub-rule (3), where a
competent Authority in an organization
authorized to investigate cases against
Government servants under the provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central
Act No.49 of 1988) or the Karnataka
Lokayuktha Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act 4 of 1985)
finds during investigation that there is a prima
facie evidence against a Government servant
and recommends that he may be placed under
suspension, the authority competent to place
such a Government servant under suspension
may place him under suspension.
(b) If departmental inquiry is not
commenced against the delinquent Government
servant or charge-sheet is not filed in the Court
within a period of six months from suspension,
the Competent Authority shall decide whether to
revoke or continue suspension of such
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
Government servant and unless decided and
ordered for continuation within this period, the
suspension shall be deemed to have been
revoked i.e., from the date of completion of a
period of six months from the date of
suspension. Upon such revocation of the order
of his suspension, it shall be the duty of the
Government servant to immediately seek order
of posting from the appointing authority, failing
which he shall be deemed to be on unauthorized
absence with effect from the date of revocation
of the order of his suspension.
Provided that the authority competent to
place a Government servant under suspension
may extend the period of suspension beyond
the period specified in this clause, only after
consulting, within the said period, with the
authority referred in clause (a) only if such
authority recommends extension within the said
period. Otherwise, the order placing
Government servant under suspension shall
stand revoked automatically under this clause."
7. It is very clear from the reading of the above
Rule that within a period of six months from the date of
suspension, the competent authority has to decide
whether to revoke or to continue the suspension of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
Government servant. If no order has been passed,
suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked
and it is the duty of the Government servant to
immediately seek for an order of posting from the
appointing authority.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AJAY
KUMAR CHOUDHARY (supra) held that suspension order
should not be extended beyond three months without
issuing a charge memo to the delinquent officer or
employee. In paragraph-21 of the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"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/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent
officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/
Chargesheet 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
concerned person 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
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
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 recognized principle of human dignity and
the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the
interest of the Government in the prosecution. We
recognize that 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."
9. In the case on hand, admittedly, there was no
order for extension of suspension and no charge memo
has been issued. Therefore, it is deemed that suspension
order be revoked. The petitioner is permitted to submit a
representation to the competent authority. If such a
representation is given by the petitioner, the competent
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3042-DB
authority is directed to consider the same and give posting
to the petitioner in accordance with the law, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such
representation.
10. With this observation, the Writ Petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
