IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NOS. 52900-52903 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. J. SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O JAVARAIAH, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (UTTARAHALLI) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, UTTARAHALLI SUB-DN., UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 061.
2. H. GULTAJ FATIMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O MUZTAR KHAN, WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER, ANJANAPURA, BRUHAT BENGLAURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (SOUTH), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011.
3. B. A. KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE APPAJACHARI, WORKING AS ASESSOR, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGLAURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, ARAKERE SUB-DIVISION MICO LAY-OUT BUS STOP, BENGALURU - 560 076.
4. C. NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE CHOWDEGOWDA WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGAURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BEGUR SUB-DIVSIION, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BEHIND NAGALINGESWAMY TEMPLE, BANGALORE - 560 104.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGA PRASANNA M., ADV.) AND COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. H. PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR C/R) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2017; QUASH ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 26.10.2017 AT ANNEX-J TO W.P. ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners are aggrieved by the suspension order dated 26-10-2017, passed by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [‘BBMP’ for short].
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the employees of BBMP in different capacities and working in its Revenue Department. On 02-12-2014, a circular was issued by the BBMP directing that the bifurcation of “a khatha” of a single property should not be entertained. During the course of the petitioners’ service, on 19-07-2017, a complaint was made by an ex-nominated Corporator of the BBMP, to the Commissioner, and to the Lokayuktha, with regard to affecting bifurcation of a “khatha” of a single property. According to the allegations, the property had been bifurcated by the petitioners, which was contrary to the circular dated 02-12-2014. Consequently on 03-10-2017, the Hon’ble Lokayuktha issued individual notices to the petitioners and directed them to submit their reply. Subsequently, on 26-10-2017, the petitioners have been suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against them. On 30-10-2017, the petitioners have submitted their reply to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha. They also informed the Hon’ble Lokayuktha that since a departmental enquiry is contemplated against them, the case pending before the Hon’ble Lokayuktha should be deferred. But, presently the petitioners are aggrieved by the suspension order.
3. Mr. M. Nagaprasanna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that two departmental enquiries cannot be held simultaneously on the basis of same set of facts. Therefore, the suspension order dated 26-10-2017, should be set aside by this Court.
4. However, Mr. S. H. Prashanth, the learned counsel for the respondent, pleads that even if two enquiries are being held, it would not adversely affect the legality of the suspension order. Since the suspension order has been passed in view of the contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings, the suspension order is legally valid.
5. In rejoinder, Mr. Nagaprasanna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a suspension order is legally valid only for a period of ninety days. In case the charge-sheet is not furnished to the delinquent officer within the period of ninety days, according to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR. [(2015) 7 SCC 291], the suspension order would become an illegal one. Therefore, in the light of the said judgment, the learned counsel seeks permission to challenge the continuation of the suspension order, in case it is continues beyond the period of ninety days.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned suspension order.
7. Undoubtedly, a suspension order can be passed in case a departmental enquiry is contemplated. According to the respondent, a departmental enquiry is under contemplation against the petitioner. Therefore, presently there is nothing illegal about the passing of the suspension order.
8. However, according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a suspension order cannot be continued indefinitely, as it adversely affects the interest and rights of the delinquent officer. Therefore, while this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the suspension order, this Court does grant the permission to the petitioner to approach this Court, in case the suspension order is continued beyond the period of ninety days from the date of the order.
With these observations, these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- Judge RD