Karnataka High Court
Sathish Kumar S T vs Union Of India on 27 May, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18378-DB
WA No. 787 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SATHISH KUMAR S.T.
S/O LAKSHMAMMA THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 'SHRIYASAMA',
CH NO.54, 6TH CROSS
K.R.VANAM, MYSURU-8
WORKING AS POSTMASTER HSG-I
UNDER SUSPENSION
HEAD POST OFFICE
NANJANAGUDU-571301
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA
...APPELLANT
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court (BY SRI. CHETHANA S.J., ADVOCATE)
of Karnataka
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND IT
DAKBHAWAN, SANSAD MARG
NEW DELHI-110001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18378-DB
WA No. 787 of 2025
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KARNATAKA CIRCLE, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION
2ND FLOOR, GPO BUILDING
BENGALURU-01
4. THE SUPDT OF POST OFFICES
NANJANAGUDU DIVISION
NANJANAGUDU-571301
5. TARA. V
W/O GANGAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS DIRECTOR POSTAL SERVICES
HEAD QUARTERS
O/O THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KARNATAKA CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001
6. RAJENDRA KUMAR S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS
CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KARNATAKA CIRCLE
BENGALURU-01
7. CHANDRASHEKAR KAKUMANU
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS
POSTMASTER GENERAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18378-DB
WA No. 787 of 2025
SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION
GPO BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
8. GOVINDARAJU N
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
WORKING AS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
NANJANAGUDU-571301
9. LAKSHMIKANTH DASH
S/O P.K.DASH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
THE DDG,
DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG
NEW DELHI-01
10. JAYARAMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
WORKING AS SUPDT OF POST OFFICES
SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION-577201
11. RAVEENDRA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
WORKING AS SRM,
RMS Q DIVISION
MANGALURU-01
12. SHRIKANTAIAH A T
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
WORKING AS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18378-DB
WA No. 787 of 2025
ASSISTANT SUPDT OF
POST OFFICES
O/O POSTMASTER GENERAL,
SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION
GPO BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
13. SMT SWATHI
W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR POSTS
O/O POSTMASTER GENERAL,
SK REGION
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R1 TO R4;
V/O DTD.27.05.2025, NOTICE TO R5 TO R13 ARE D/W)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL
FILED BY THE APPELLANT BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 09/04/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.10215/2025 BY
THE HONBLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18378-DB
WA No. 787 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
This appeal is directed against the order dated
09.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. No.10215/2025.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for
appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Order bearing No.SP/CONFIDENTIAL/DLGS/
2025 dated 28.03.2025, suspending the appellant from
service, was challenged before the learned Single Judge,
seeking a direction to the respondents to continue him at
the same place from where he was relieved in completion
of his tenure and further to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against respondent No.5 to 13 therein etc.
NC: 2025:KHC:18378-DB
4. The learned Single Judge noticing that the
appellant herein is an employee of the Postal Department
and therefore, any dispute regarding his service had to be
agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal as
provided under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and opining that an
alternative remedy is available, dismissed the writ petition,
reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central
Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant is an
employee of the Postal Department and therefore, dispute
regarding his service can be agitated before the Central
Administrative Tribunal as provided under Section 19 of
the Act.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the impugned order of suspension
dated 28.03.2025 is an order passed without jurisdiction
NC: 2025:KHC:18378-DB
and therefore, there is no bar to entertain the writ petition
even if there is availability of an alternative remedy.
7. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the
contention raised by the respondent that the suspension
was neither punishment nor does it affect the service
condition of the petitioner and therefore, the order was
under the authority of law.
8. It is also brought to the notice of the Court by
the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 that after
disposal of the writ petition on 09.04.2025,
the appellant has preferred an appeal under Rule 23(i) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before the Appellate Authority and
Postmaster General, S.K. Region, Bengaluru.
9. In view of the above, keeping open all the
contentions of the appellant to be raised before the
appropriate forum, the writ appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:18378-DB
Pending I.As are disposed of.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SJK
