Karnataka High Court

The Deputy Commissioner vs Suresh Reddy on 3 July, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB
                                                        WA No.200119 of 2024




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                            PRESENT

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
                                               AND
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           WRIT APPEAL NO.200119 OF 2024 (S-RES)

                      BETWEEN:

                      THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                      AND THE CHAIRMAN,
                      NIRMITHI KENDRA, RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                                                   ...APPELLANT

                      (BY SRI GOURISH S.KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA          SRI. SURESH REDDY
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON           S/O SHARANAPPA GOUDA,
Location: HIGH        AGE: 42 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             OCC: EARLIER IN-CHARGE PROJECT MANAGER
                      IN NIRMATHI KENDRA RAICHUR,
                      R/O: H.NO.1-11-118/2,
                      P.V. NAGAR, EKLASPAR ROAD,
                      RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                          THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
                      KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
                      WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
                                  -2-
                                   NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB
                                            WA No.200119 of 2024




18.08.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.202069/2017 (S-
RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.

    THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is filed by the appellant challenging

the order dated 18.08.2023 passed in

W.P.No.202069/2017 by the learned Single Judge.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal

are as under:

The petitioner/respondent was working in Nirmithi

Kendra at Raichur district for several years without single

allegations and complaint against him. Considering his

service, the appellant promoted him as an In-charge

Project Manager on 07.07.2014 and he worked up to

16.12.2015. It is contended that the

petitioner/respondent's performance was in accordance

with the rules and regulations of Nirmithi Kendra. The

Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi on the alleged

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB

complaint against Nirmithi Kendra, Raichur, constituted an

investigation team to investigate the alleged irregularities

committed by the various persons commencing from

2007-08 to 30.11.2012. The said investigation team after

completion of the investigation submitted a report to the

appellant. On the basis of the report submitted by the

investigating team, the appellant suspended some of the

employees including the petitioner/respondent. It is

contended that there are no specific allegations against

the respondent on the report submitted by the Committee

to the appellant. Therefore, the respondent was promoted

as an in-charge Project Manager on 07.07.2014. The

respondent assumed the charge from one K.Kushal

Kumar, since from that date the respondent worked as an

in-charge Project Manager till 16.12.2015.

3. The CAG conducted the audit of Nirmithi

Kendra, Raichur in the month of October, 2015. As per the

CAG report administrative lapses are highlighted. The

appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent on

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB

23.11.2015. It is contended that respondent was directed

to submit the application to the audit report. The

respondent submitted a detailed reply to the show cause

notice on 03.12.2015, stating that there is no specific

allegation against the respondent, work was done as per

the norms and procedure. The appellant passed an order

of suspension on 14.12.2015, suspended the respondent

and directed to enquire the conduct of the staff members

and ordered to submit a report within 7 days. The

respondent submitted the representation to revoke the

order of suspension and release the salary. The appellant

has not paid the subsistence allowance and salary for the

month of October 2011 to December 2015.

4. The respondent, aggrieved by the inaction on

the part of the appellant filed the writ petition seeking for

quashing the order of suspension dated 14.12.2015

passed by the appellant and sought for mandamus

directing the respondent to disburse the subsistence

allowance and salary during the suspension period as per

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB

the representation submitted by the respondent dated

11.02.2017 vide Annexure-E.

5. The appellant has not filed the statement of

objection before the writ Court. The learned Single Judge

vide order dated 18.08.2023 allowed the writ petition.

6. The appellant aggrieved by the order dated

18.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, has filed

this writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

also learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits

that, the respondent has committed irregularities in Nirmiti

Kendra, Raichur and CAG has observed in the audit report

that administrative and financial violations are highlighting

based on the report. The appellant issued a show cause

notice to the respondent and called for explanation. He

submits that respondent has committed serious lapse in

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB

the administrative and financial operations of Nirmiti

Kendra. He submits that the appellant has rightly passed

an order of suspension. Hence, on these grounds he

submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an

error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these

grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the appellant has suspended the respondent

on 14.12.2015 and no enquiry has been conducted by the

appellant. He submits that no reasons has been assigned

by the appellant. He submits that, the appellant without

extending the order of suspension in writing has continued

the order of suspension which is contrary to law. He

submits that order of suspension cannot be continued for

more than 6 months. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. We have perused the records and considered

the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB

11. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner/respondent was working as a Junior Engineer

and he was promoted as an In-charge Project Manager on

07.07.2014 and he worked up to 16.12.2015. The

Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi on the basis of

complaint against Nirmithi Kendra, Raichur constituted a

investigation team to investigate the alleged irregularity

committed by the various persons commencing from

2007-08 to 30.11.2012. The investigating team after

completion of the investigation submitted a report to the

appellant. On the basis of the report submitted by the

committee, the appellant suspended the employees

including the respondent on the ground that there was

irregularities being committed by the employees of the

Nirmithi Kendra, Raichur. The appellant passed the order

of suspension on 14.12.2015 suspending the respondent

and other employees and directed to conduct the enquiry

of the staff members and to submit a report. The

respondent has submitted several representation to

revoke the suspension order and release the salary.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB

12. From the perusal of the reasons it discloses that

no enquiry was conducted against the respondent so far

and not taken any action to initiate criminal prosecution

against the respondent. The learned Single Judge placing

the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA

AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2015 (7) SCC 291, wherein, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court at para No.21 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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:4559-DB

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."

13. Admittedly, in the instant case, appellant has

not passed any order for extension of suspension. The

learned Single Judge has set aside the order of suspension

and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent into

service. As observed above, the respondent was

suspended with effect from 14.12.2015 and learned

counsel for the appellant has not placed any records

neither before the learned Single judge nor before this

Court to demonstrate that the enquiry was conducted

against the respondent or any action to initiate the

criminal proceeding. The learned Single Judge placing the

- 10 -