[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Parsappa H S/O. Sri. Galemma vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2026

Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad

Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB
                                                          WP No. 102203 of 2026


                   HC-KAR


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                          DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                           PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
                                              AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 102203 OF 2026 (S-KAT)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. PARSAPPA H
                   S/O. SRI. GALEMMA,
                   AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                   OCC: ASST. PROFESSOR,
                   SAYT GOVERNMENT
                   FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
                   KUDLIGI, KUDLIGI TQ.,
                   VIJAYANAGAR DIST - 583 125,
                   R/O. REVENNASIDDESHWARA,
                   OPP. TO DEVI MEDICALS,
                   KAPPAGAL ROAD,
                   BALLARI - 583 117.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV.)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR            1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: High            R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
Court of                  DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Karnataka,                (COLLEGIATE), M.S. BUILDING,
Dharwad
Bench                     BENGALURU - 560 001.

                   2.     THE COMMISSIONER OF
                          COLLEGIATE AND
                          TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
                          SHESHADRI ROAD,
                          BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                                          ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
                                -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB
                                        WP No. 102203 of 2026


HC-KAR




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF        THE     CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS

AND, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/02/2026 PASSED BY

HON'BLE      KARNATAKA        STATE     ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10863/2025

VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE

APPLICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND

EQUITY. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE

TRIBUNAL     DEEMS     FIT,    IN     THE   FACTS   AND

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COST

OF THIS APPLICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

AND EQUITY.


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION,       COMING   ON    FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE

THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
            AND
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                               -3-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB
                                          WP No. 102203 of 2026


HC-KAR


                     ORAL ORDER

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

The petitioner is working as an Assistant

Professor with SAVT Government First Grade College,

Kudligi, Vijayanagara District [the Institution], and he

has filed his application in A.No.10863/2025 with the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short,

'KSAT'] impugning the second respondent's order

dated 16.07.2025 keeping him under suspension

pending initiation of departmental proceedings. The

Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application in

A.No.10863/2025 by the impugned order dated

18.02.2026.

2. The Tribunal, by its order dated

19.12.2025, has rejected the petitioner's interim

application for stay of the second respondent's order

dated 16.07.2025. The petitioner has filed the

petition in W.P. No.110004/2025 calling in question

the Tribunal's order dated 19.12.2025. This Court, on

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

23.12.2025, has allowed the writ petition granting an

interim order. The second respondent has thereafter

continued the petitioner in service. Sri Sunil S. Desai,

the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sharad

Magadum, the learned Additional Government

Advocate for the respondents are heard for disposal

of the petition.

3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the

present petition are stated thus. The complaint

against the petitioner, and the reason to keep him

under suspension, is that he has sexually harassed a

student [the Complainant] who had enrolled in the

Institution in the year 2021-22 for graduation in Arts.

The Complainant has filed complaints alleging that

the petitioner coerced her into physical intimacy

under threat of disrupting her studies if she did not

co-operate. The complainant has filed her first

complaint with the principal of the Institution in July

2023 and again in August 2024.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

4. The Internal Complaints Committee in the

Institution1 has filed its report on 24.07.2024, after

inquiring with both the complainant and the

petitioner, opining that both are selective in

furnishing the messages shared with each other and

that the allegation of the petitioner bringing the

complainant under duress must be examined by a

competent body as it does not have necessary

resources in that regard. The Internal Complaints

Committee's report is placed with the jurisdictional

Joint Commissioner, and ultimately, the Director,

Collegiate Education [the Director] has conducted

another inquiry.

5. The Director has recorded the Statements

of complainant and the petitioner. The complainant

has reiterated the allegation about the petitioner

forcing her into physical intimacy stating that the

petitioner's wife has also intervened on his behalf

1The Committee constituted under Section 4 of the Sexual

Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

with her to withdraw the complaint. The complainant

has stated that she has informed a Hon'ble Minister

who was visiting the Institution without the details of

the visit. The petitioner has stated that in July, 2024

he received a call from a journalist, and when he met

the Journalist as insisted, there was a demand for

Rs.10,00,000/- not to pursue the compliant against

him.

6. The Director has also inquired with the

incumbent principal of the Institution, and the

principal, referring to some instances of alleged

altercation, has stated that the petitioner has denied

the allegation and that the petitioner was not brought

under any duress by any person within the

Institution. The Petitioner has been on leave for some

time during this period. The Director has filed the

Report on 29.01.2025 opining that there is no

evidence of any sexual misdemeanor by the

petitioner, but he has failed in discharging his

responsibilities towards a student. Crucially, the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

Director has opined that possibly there was a

consensual interaction between the petitioner and the

complainant. The second respondent's impugned

decision to keep the petitioner under suspension is in

the light of this report by the Director.

7. The petitioner has contested the second

respondent's decision to keep him under suspension

asserting inter-alia that [a] the second respondent is

not the Appointing Authority and therefore this

Officer could not have kept him under suspension in

exercise of the powers under Rule 10 of the

Karnataka Civil Service [Classification, Control and

Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, 'the 1957 Rules'], and

[b] the complaint against him is motivated and this is

seen from the fact, amongst others, that the

complainant, who alleges coercion and harassment,

did not file a complaint while she was pursuing her

graduation and the complaint is filed after the

Petitioner refused a ransom.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

8. The respondents have justified the

decision to keep the petitioner under suspension

relying upon the allegations, the petitioner's

responsibilities as an Assistant Professor and the

process followed to prima facie verify the allegations

against him. This Court must also record that, after

the Tribunal had completed the hearing and reserved

the petitioner's application, the respondents filed a

copy of the post facto approval granted by the Hon'ble

Minister for Higher Education approving the decision

to keep the petitioner under suspension.

9. The Tribunal, has affirmed the second

respondent's decision to keep the petitioner under

suspension observing that the decision to keep an

employee under suspension cannot be a penalty and

that the petitioner for the first time has taken up the

contention that the Hon'ble Chief Minister had not

approved the decision to keep him under suspension

as required under Rule 36 of the Karnataka

Government [Transaction of Business Rules], 1977

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

[for short, 'the 1977 Rules']. The Tribunal has also

opined that the allegation against the petitioner is of

sexual misdemeanor and the materials against the

petitioner prima facie show gross dereliction of duty

as contemplated under Rule 10 (1)(d) of the 1957

Rules.

10. The first question that must be answered

for a decision on the petitioner's grievance with the

second respondent's decision dated 16.7.2025 to

keep him under suspension and the confirmation

thereof by the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 is

on the second respondent's jurisdiction to take such

decision. The second respondent's decision is in

exercise of powers under Rule 10(1) of the 1957

Rules, which in its material part reads as under:

"10. Suspension - (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is sub-ordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in this behalf may place a Government Servant under suspension.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

xxxxx

(d) Where there is prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty against him.]

[Provided that, where the order of suspension is made by an authority empowered by Government in this behalf which is lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made.]"

11. The Appointing Authority, or any

authority subordinate to the Appointing Authority as

empowered by the State Government, can keep an

employee under suspension. The decision to keep the

employee under suspension could be for any of the

reasons mentioned in Rule 10(1)(a) to 10(1)(d), and in

this case the decision to keep the petitioner under

suspension could only be under Rule 10(1)(d) of the

1957 Rules. If the Appointing Authority takes a

decision to keep an employee under suspension, the

merits of that decision will only be tested to verify

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

whether it is for any of the reasons mentioned in Rule

10(1)(a) to 10(1)(d). However, if the decision is by an

Authority which is lower than the Appointing

Authority [but when authorized by the State

Government], the merits of that decision will also be

examined to verify whether there is compliance with

the requirement under the proviso.

12. If the decision is by an Authority lower

than the Appointing Authority, such lower Authority

must forward a report immediately to the Appointing

Authority setting forth the reasons for the decision.

When an Authority lower than the Appointing

Authority takes a decision to keep an employee under

suspension, apart from satisfying reasons as

contemplated under Rule 10(1)(a) to 10(1)(d), the

decision will pass muster in law only when it is

shown that [a] such authority is empowered by the

State Government to take such decision, and [b] this

Authority forwards a report, giving the reasons for the

decision, immediately to the Appointing Authority.

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

13. This scheme in Rule 10 does not

contemplate a decision by an Authority which is

lower than the Appointing Authority and a post-facto

decision approval by the State Government. It is

undisputed that the second respondent is not the

petitioner's Appointing Authority, and it is the first

respondent2. The respondents have failed to bring on

record material to justify that the State Government

has empowered the second respondent to decide

whether an employee such as the petitioner must be

kept under suspension if the circumstances so

justify.

14. The Tribunal has referred to the 1977

Rules, and this is because of this Court's following

observation in W.P. No.110004/2025. This Court's

observation reads as under.

2 The Karnataka Education Department Services (Collegiate

Education Department) (Recruitment of Assistant Professor) (Special) Rules, 2020 stipulates that the State Government [the first respondent] is the Appointing Authority.

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

"6. Perusal of application at Annexure-A and interim application at Annexure-C reveal specific contention about order of suspension being passed in violation of Rule 36 of Rules was taken only in application for additional documents. It is also seen from order sheet of Tribunal proceedings that respondent- State has not filed objections to interim application despite being provided sufficient opportunity. To substantiate submission, our attention is also drawn to endorsement issued by respondent no.2 dated 19.09.2025 (though in context of rejecting an application for furnishing of documents) that there was no post facto approval of order of suspension by Government and insofar as Group-A officers, Government was disciplinary authority. Said submission would prima facie fall in line with petitioner's contention and respondent-State would be required to traverse such specific contention as it would go to root of matter."

This Court's observation on post-facto approval is in

the context of an endorsement issued rejecting an

application filed by the petitioner for copies of certain

documents, but this Rule will not be very germane in

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

the peculiarities of the case where the second

respondent, not being the Appointing Authority, has

issued the impugned order keeping the petitioner

under suspension.

15. The Tribunal has verified the merits of the

second respondent's decision based on the

allegations of sexual misdemeanor without referring

to the Internal Complaints Committee's Report dated

24.07.2024 and the Director's subsequent Report

dated 29.01.2025. The first report records that the

complainant is selective, as the petitioner is, in

sharing the WhatsApp messages. The second report

is that there could be some kind of a consensual

interaction between the petitioner and the

complainant, though it also records that the

petitioner may have breached the higher standards

expected of a professor in exchanging WhatsApp

messages with the complainant.

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4795-DB

HC-KAR

16. These aspects must also be considered,

when assessing a prima facie case required under

Rule 10(1)(d) of the 1957 Rules along with the fact

that the complainant has not lodged a complaint, as

asserted by the petitioner, until she completed her

graduation with the petitioner asserting that he was

under duress to pay a ransom. The petitioner has

continued in service during the pendency of his

Application with the Tribunal. This Court, on a

careful consideration, must opine that the second

respondent and the Tribunal have not considered

these circumstances and this has resulted in an

irregular decision justifying interference. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

A. The writ petition is allowed quashing

the second respondent's order dated

16.07.2025 [Annexure-A3] and the

Tribunal's order dated 18.02.2025

[Annexure -G]