Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shailesh Kumar vs The Union Of India on 10 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5776-DB
WA No. 138 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHAILESH KUMAR
S/O SIDHESHWAR SINGH
AGE: 54 YEARS
FLAT NO.412, E2 BLOCK
SMR VINAY ESTELLA
SINGAPURA PARADISE LAYOUT
MS PALYA, BENGALURU-560 097.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, SR. ADVOCATER FOR
SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by H
K HEMA
Location: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA
High Court MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS
of Karnataka
AND FERTILIZERS
DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS
ROOM NO.340B, A-WING
3RD FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110 001.
BY THE SECRETARY OF
PHARMACEUTICALS.
2. THE KARNATAKA ANTIBIOTICS AND
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
ARKA - THE BUSINESS CENTRE
NO. 37, NTTF MAIN ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5776-DB
WA No. 138 of 2025
2ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BENGALURU - 560 058.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
MS. NIRAJA SARAFA
AGED MAJOR.
3. THE KARNATAKA ANTIBIOTICS
AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
ARKA-THE BUSINESS CENTRE, NO. 37
NTTF MAIN ROAD, 2ND PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BENGALURU-560 058.
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
MR. MANJUNATH HEGDE.
4. THE DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
SELECTION BOARD,
BLOCK NO.14, C.G.O COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DGSI, FOR R1 & R4;
SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-31598/2024 AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION No.31598/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONTINUE /
GRANT THE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY AS PRAYED FOR BY
THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WRIT PETITION No.31598/2024, IN TERMS OF THE ORDER
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5776-DB
WA No. 138 of 2025
DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.31598/2024
TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. V. Lakshminarayan
assisted by learned advocate Mr. M.K. Prithveesh for the appellant,
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H.Shanthi Bhushan
for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and learned Senior Advocate
Mr..S.N..Murthy assisted by learned advocate Mr. Somashekar, for
respondent No.3.
2. The present appeal seeks to challenge the order dated
04.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in the pending
proceedings of Writ Petition No.31598 of 2024, by which the order
dated 26.11.2024 was vacated. As per order dated 26.11.2024,
the suspension against the petitioner-appellant was stayed.
NC: 2025:KHC:5776-DB
3. In the writ petition, twin prayers were made. The first was to
set aside the show cause notice dated 09.09.2024 issued in
respect of certain irregularities alleged against the petitioner and
the other challenge was to the order of suspension dated
21.11.2024 which was passed against the petitioner-appellant in
contemplation of the disciplinary inquiry.
4. While vacating the stay of suspension granted earlier,
learned Single Judge rested his order on the following reason,
"27. In light of the contemplated disciplinary
proceedings, the order of suspension passed is a
decision taken by the employer in its wisdom and
cannot be interfered at this stage. The coincidence of
invitation of application for the post of Managing
Director cannot be a sole ground to stay the order of
suspension. The petitioner may have to bear the
consequences of the inquiry till he comes clean from
the inquiry. It would not be appropriate to stay the order
of suspension in light of consequences which the
employer may have kept in mind while passing the
order of suspension."
5. There are two reasons why the Court is not inclined to
interfere with the interim order. Firstly, the aforesaid reasons
supplied by learned Single Judge for vacating the stay of
suspension could be said to be proper and legal. Secondly, the
order by its very nature is an interim order and it is passed at the
NC: 2025:KHC:5776-DB
interim stage when the main challenge in the writ petition is
pending for consideration on its merits. Rights of any of the parties
are not finally crystallized. Even the legality of the suspension
order is yet to be finally examined.
5.1 Not only that learned Single Judge has observed to make it
clear that, extracting from paragraph 30, 'needless to state that the
observations made are only for the purpose of disposing of
interlocutory applications and are open for re-consideration when
passing of the order on merits'.
5.2 In the aforesaid view, the Court is not inclined to exercise the
appellate jurisdiction when the appeal is pending at large before
learned Single Judge.
6. In the totality of facts and circumstances, it is open for the
parties to request learned Single Judge for expeditious hearing and
disposal of the writ petition to which, learned Single Judge will give
due regard having regard to his time table.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly without expressing
anything on the merits of the subject.
NC: 2025:KHC:5776-DB
In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory
application that may be pending, would not survive and stands
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
PGG
