IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.44983/2017(S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.38229/2017(S-DIS) IN W. P.NO.44983/2017 BETWEEN DR H N RAMESH S/O LATE NAGANAIK AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WAS WORKING AS PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA) KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY JNANASAHYDRI, SHANKARAGHATTA SHIVAMOGGA-577541 (BY SRI SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M S BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND THE REGISTRAR KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY JNANASAHYDRI, SHANKARAGHATTA SHIVAMOGGA-577541 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION DTD 22.09.2017 ANNX-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 22.09.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-A.
IN W. P.NO.38229/2017 BETWEEN DR. H. N. RAMESH S/O LATE NAGANAIK, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA) KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, JNANASAHYDRI, SHANKARAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA-577541 (BY SRI SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M S BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND THE REGISTRAR KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, JNANASAHYDRI, SHANKARAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA-577541 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION DTD.23.5.2017 VIDE ANNEX-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION DTD.23.5.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEX-A.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor in the respondent-University on 18.09.2011 and he worked in the said post till 18.09.2014. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Professor and Head of the Department of Business Administration, by order dated 29.09.2015.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 17.05.2017 in the classroom, one student by name Sridhar Patil was using his mobile phone in the classroom and therefore the petitioner asked the student to leave the classroom. That student committed suicide and left a death note stating that the petitioner was responsible for his death. The student’s father lodged a complaint against the petitioner and an FIR was registered in Crime No.160/2017. Following the registration of FIR, the petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 23.05.2017. In W.P.No.38229/2017, the petitioner has called in question the order of suspension dated 23.05.2017 and in the subsequent writ petition i.e., W.P.No.44983/2017 the petitioner has challenged the order of extension of the period of suspension dated 22.09.2017.
3. Both these petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court, a decision of this Court in the case of Sri T.R.Swamy Vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board in W.P.Nos.7025-7026/2019 which were disposed of on 28.02.2019.
5. The learned Counsel submits that placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, this Court considered the question whether the currency of a suspension order could be extended beyond three months, if within the said period charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer.
6. It is relevant to notice paragraphs 11 and 12 in the decision of T.R.Swamy (supra) which is extracted hereunder:
“11. Therefore, it is clear that the crux of the matter in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) was regarding the power to keep the delinquent officer under suspension beyond a reasonable period. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been made use of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court keeping in mind the legal expectation of expedition and diligence being present at every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in departmental enquiries, the same having been emphasized by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. It is also clear that the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), is not based on the provisions of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965, and more particularly, Rule 10 as was found in the case of Dipak Mali which was relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-KIADB.
12. On the other hand, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. A. Nataraj, the Division Bench has taken note of all the provisions including the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, and in the light of the judgment of Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case (supra), the Division Bench has come to a conclusion that the suspension order was continued by passing a subsequent order and extending the period of suspension, which was found to be against the Provisions of Rule 10(1) (c) and (d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules and contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).”
7. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) is applicable to the facts of the case on hand, on all fours. It is an admitted position that charge sheet is not filed against the petitioner, till date. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed, while quashing the order of suspension dated 23.05.2017 at Annexure ‘A’ in W.P.No.38229/2017 and the order of extension of the period of suspension dated 22.09.2017 at Annexure ‘A’ in W.P.No.44983/2017.
8. It is ordered accordingly.
9. In view of the above, I.A.No.1/2019 stands disposed of.
JT/-
SD/- JUDGE