[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Basavaraj S/O Pundalikappa Nirugi vs Sri. Vasanna R Ramappa on 6 March, 2026

Author: B.M. Shyam Prasad

Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB
                                                            WA No. 100065 of 2026
                                                        C/W CCC No. 100051 of 2026

                   HC-KAR


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

                           DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2026

                                           PRESENT

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

                                              AND

                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                           WRIT APPEAL NO. 100065 OF 2026 (S-RES)

                                              C/W

                   CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100051/2026(CIVIL)



                   IN WA No. 100065/2026
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.     THE COMMISSIONER,
                          CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
                          BAGALKOTE - 587 101,
                          R/BY SHRI. VASANNA R.,
                          AGE: 49 YEARS,
Digitally signed          OCC: COMMISSIONER.
by RAKESH S                                                    ... APPELLANT
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of           (BY SRI. VISHWANATH V. BADIGER, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
                   AND:

                   1.     SRI. BASAVARAJ
                          S/O. PUNDALIKAPPA NIRUGI,
                          AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                          EX-REVENUE OFFICER,
                          CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
                          BAGALKOT,
                          DIST: BAGALKOT
                          R/O: MAHABOOB SAB DURGA
                          WARD NO 3, HALEPETE,
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB
                                     WA No. 100065 of 2026
                                 C/W CCC No. 100051 of 2026

HC-KAR


     BAGALKOT - 587 101.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
     M.S. BUILDING,
     VIKAS SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU - 01.

3.   THE DIRECTOR,
     DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
     ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR,
     DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     SIR. M. VISHWESHARAIAH TOWER,
     BENGALURU - 01.

4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     BAGALKOTE,
     DIST: BAGALKOTE - 582 101.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV. FOR R1.
    SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO,
SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY LEARENED
SINGLE JUDGES PASSED IN WP NO.109347/2025
(S-RES) VIDE DATED 02.02.2026, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN CCC NO. 100051/2026
BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. BASAVARAJ
     S/O. PUNDALIKAPPA NIRUGI,
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER,
     CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
     BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOTE
                                     ... COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
                             -3-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB
                                      WA No. 100065 of 2026
                                  C/W CCC No. 100051 of 2026

HC-KAR




AND:

1.   SRI. VASANNA R. RAMAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     THE COMMISSIONER,
     CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
     BAGALKOTE,
     DIST. BAGALKOTE - 582 101.
                                          ... ACCUSED

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     R/BY BY AGA DHARWAD

                         ... PRO FORMA RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH V. BADIGER, ADV. FOR R1.
    SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2)


   THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO,
SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED BE TAKEN
FOR HAVING VIOLATED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP.NO.109347/2025 DATED
02-02-2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND AS PER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT FOR
HAVING DELIBERATELY IGNORED THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE COURT AND DISPOSSESSING THE
MEMBERS OF COMPLAINANT. ANY OTHER RELIEF
THAT DEEMS FIT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES BE ALSO
BE ORDERED.

     THIS APPEAL AND PETITION, COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                    -4-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB
                                             WA No. 100065 of 2026
                                         C/W CCC No. 100051 of 2026

HC-KAR


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD)

The dispute is over the decision to keep the first

respondent [in this intra-Court appeal] under

suspension and the alleged non-compliance with the

directions issued by a writ Court. The parties, for

easy reference, are referred to as they are arrayed in

the intra-Court appeal. The first respondent is served

with the Order dated 22.07.2025 keeping him under

suspension with retrospective effect and directing

him to report to duty with City Municipal Council

[CMC], Davangere. The first respondent, as of this

Order dated 22.07.2025, was working as a Chief

Officer Grade-I with the appellant [The Commissioner,

City Municipal Council, Bagalakote].

2. The first respondent has called this Order

dated 22.07.2025 in question in Writ Petition

No.106080 of 2025. The writ Court has quashed the

Order dated 22.07.2025 in its entirety but observing

that the State Government can post the first

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB

HC-KAR

respondent to another place. The writ Court's

directions as aforesaid are based on the conclusion

as follows.

"On a conspectus of the above, this Court is left with no doubt that the impugned suspension is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The order is vitiated by non-application of mind, violative of Rule 10(3) of the Rules and contrary to the Circular dated 13-01-2015. The ends of justice however would be met if liberty is reserved to the State to post the petitioner in any other position commensurate with administrative exigencies. What cannot be countenanced is his consignment to indefinite suspension on the tenuous ground of 2 days custody followed by bail."

3. The State Government has not issued any

further order of posting, and the first respondent has

filed his next writ petition in Writ Petition No.109347

of 2025 for directions to the appellant [and the State

Government] to release salary and to permit him to

report duty as the Chief Officer Grade-I with the

appellant. The writ Court has disposed of this writ

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB

HC-KAR

petition by the Order dated 02.02.2026. The writ

Court's direction reads as under.

i. Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to release the full salary payable to the petitioner for the period from 10.03.2025 till date, treating the petitioner as being on duty and to complete all the consequential formalities within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

ii. Respondent No.4 is further directed to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties forthwith in terms of the liberty reserved by this Court in WP No.106080/2025.

4. The first respondent has filed his

contempt application asserting that the appellant is

in deliberate breach of the direction to permit him to

report to duty and to pay salary. The appellant has

appeared before this Court in person on 04.03.2026,

and the incumbent officer has placed on record:

[a] After the Government Order dated

02.03.2026 he has no impediment

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB

HC-KAR

in releasing 50% of the salary to the

first respondent for the period upto

22.07.2025 because the remaining

50% has been admitted to him as

subsistence allowance; and

[b] The remaining amount, 50% of the

salary or any other further amount,

will have to be paid by the Office of

the Commissioner, Davangere

because of the State Government's

Order dated 02.03.2026.

The State Government's Order dated 02.03.2026

reads that, because of the writ Court's direction in

Writ Petition No.106080 of 2025, the first respondent

must be reinstated specifying that the petitioner

must report to duty with the CMC, Birur, but subject

to pending Departmental Inquiry.

5. Sri. Badiger Vishwanath Veerappa, the

learned counsel for the appellant, reiterates the stand

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB

HC-KAR

as afore, while Sri. Sunil S. Desai, the learned

counsel for the first respondent, submits that neither

the appellant nor the State Government can avoid the

consequence of paying salary without a break

because the Court's directions in Writ Petition

No.106080 of 2025 was to permit the first respondent

to report to duty but with liberty to the State

Government to give a fresh posting but such posting

has not been given even as of date. This Court finds

considerable force in this assertion in the

circumstances narrated and because the State

Government has issued no order on posting until the

Order dated 02.03.2026.

6. Sri. Sharad V. Magdum, the learned

Additional Government Advocate, submits that the

writ appeal could be disposed of with just orders,

closing the contempt proceedings as bona fides are

brought on record, but without prejudice to the

pending departmental proceedings. In rejoinder, Sri.

Sunil S. Desai contends that the only pending

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB

HC-KAR

proceedings are penal proceedings which are stayed

by this Court in a Criminal Petition No.101955/2025

and that departmental proceedings are not

commenced, and the learned counsel also submits

that the first respondent will have to demit the Office

at the end of this month upon attaining the age of

superannuation.

7. The appellant must pay the salary upto

28.02.2026 to the first respondent as he cannot be

told, in the absence of a posting order, that his salary

should be paid from the Office of the Commissioner,

CMC, Davanagere/ Birur. Further, as it is now stated

that a third person has reported to duty as Chief

Officer Grade-I with the appellant after the Orders

dated 22.07.2025, this Court is of the view that lest

there be further proceedings, the first respondent

must report to duty with the Office of the

Commissioner, CMC, Birur and all his emoluments

effective from 01.03.2026 must be paid accordingly.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB

HC-KAR

As regards the alleged pending departmental

proceedings and the retirement benefits, the State

Government must ensure that the retirement benefits

must be settled without break in continuity of service

from 22.07.2025, but subject to the law on such

settlement if there is a departmental proceeding.

Hence the following:

ORDER

a. The writ appeal stands disposed of

directing the appellant to ensure that the

salary and all emoluments to the first

respondent are settled as of 28.02.2026 by

the end of this month.

b. The first respondent shall report to the

Birur, City Municipal Corporation in

terms of the Government Order dated

02.03.2026 at the earliest; and in any

event before 11.03.2026.

c. The first respondent shall be admitted to

salary and all emoluments for this month

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3571-DB

HC-KAR

as required in law. The first respondent's

retirement benefits shall be settled subject

to this Court's observation as aforesaid.

d. The appellant shall ensure that

appropriate relieving orders in terms of

these directions are issued at the earliest.

e. The contempt proceedings are closed in