Karnataka High Court
K N Swamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5209
WP No. 23869 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.23869 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
K.N.SWAMY
S/O LATE T .K.KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
D.U.D.C CHITHRADURGA
CHITHRADURGA TOWN AND DISTRICT
R/AT NO.497, 5TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, DUMB AND DEAF SCHOOL
R M YARD, D C M LAYOUT
AVARAGERE
DAVANAGERE - 577 003
...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. SHRAVAN MADHAV K P, ADVOCATE)
ALBHAGYA
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION
OFF AT: 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER
AMBEDKAR ROAD
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5209
WP No. 23869 of 2023
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER, BEARING G.O.NO.NA.
A.E/09/BMS/2023, DTD 19.10.2023, ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(AT ANNEXURE-J) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing
impugned suspension order dated 19.10.2023 issued by
respondent No.3 - Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department as per Annexure-J.
NC: 2024:KHC:5209
2. Petitioner's grievance before this Court is that
respondent No.3, based on the report prepared by the
Project Director, has placed petitioner under suspension on
the ground that the report indicates that the work is not
completed and some fabricated bills are raised and the
same have been approved by the Officials in charge
including petitioner herein, who was Assistant Executive
Engineer, D.U.D.C, Chithradurga at the relevant point of
time.
3. The petitioner has challenged suspension order
on the ground that show-cause notice dated 07.08.2023
and consequent suspension order is based on false and
fabricated report, which is contrary to the true facts and
documents. The second limb of arguments canvassed by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that
respondent No.3 contrary to report submitted by the
Project Director has arbitrarily initiated action against
petitioner though report indicates that in all nine persons,
NC: 2024:KHC:5209
who were in charge of the projects, are found to be guilty
of dereliction of duty.
4. Pending consideration of the captioned writ
petition, petitioner, while assailing impugned suspension
order, has placed reliance on the internal enquiry report
prepared by the Department of Municipal Administration.
Referring to the Report, he would point out that report
indicates that in all nine concerned Officials are also
responsible for the loss caused to the department. The
petitioner also contends that after completion of project,
the Executing Engineer has conducted spot inspection and
no action is proposed against the Executive Engineer.
Reliance is placed on the internal enquiry report indicating
that the Executive Engineer along with petitioner herein
have conducted spot inspection on 17.08.2021. Therefore,
petitioner contends that respondent No.3 could not have
placed petitioner under suspension relying solely on the
report dated 09.06.2023 submitted by the Project
Director, who admittedly is a non-technical person and
NC: 2024:KHC:5209
does not possess expertise to place a report relating to
completion of project and therefore, petitioner has
contended that report dated 09.06.2023 is not reliable on
the ground that the Project Director lacks technical
knowledge.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.
6. Though petitioner has placed reliance on the
internal enquiry report submitted by the Director of
Municipal Administration, the said report does not come to
the aid of the petitioner in entirety. The internal enquiry
report submitted by the Enquiry Authority gives an
indication that petitioner along with other Officials, who
are connected to the project, are found to be guilty of
dereliction of duty and they are responsible for financial
loss. The petitioner's grievance is that no action is taken
against the Executive Engineer and other eight employees
whose names are indicated in the internal Enquiry Report.
NC: 2024:KHC:5209
I am of the view that this cannot be a ground to interfere
with the suspension order issued by respondent No.3.
7. However, I am of the view that petitioner is at
liberty to submit representation and seek revocation of the
suspension order by placing reliance on the enquiry report
submitted by the Director of Municipal Administration.
On examining materials on record, I am not inclined to
grant any indulgence at this stage. Judicial review in
suspension matter is very limited and the Hon'ble Apex
Court and this Court in catena of judgments have
consistently held that suspension order should not be
reviewed by the Courts unless the suspension order is
tainted with malafides, arbitrary or punitive in nature. The
judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has no application to the present case on hand.
8. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to
pass the following;
NC: 2024:KHC:5209
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to submit a fresh
representation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
