IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P. NO.8532/2017 (S- DIS) BETWEEN:
S. MANJOJI RAO S/O. SHIVAJI RAO, AGED ABUT 46 YEARS, SDC IN CMC, BHADRAVATHI, RESIDENT OF N.G. LAYOUT, OPP. KADA OFFICE, MALAVOGOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
(BY SRI.PRAMODA GOWDA, T.P.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENTOF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577201.
3. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ... PETITIONER BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577302.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP., FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 23.11.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned HCGP., is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Petitioner is before this Court calling in question Annexure-E being the order of suspension issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District, Shivamogga, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect.
4. A perusal of Annexure-E would reveal that the petitioner is facing an allegation of fabrication of seal and forgery of the signature of the erstwhile Deputy Commissioner. Upon a complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered F.I.R. in Crime No.187/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 473 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
5. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner is said to have fabricated a sale certificate in favor of one Abdul Razaq. In the process, he is said to have fabricated the seal and forged the signature of the erstwhile Commissioner and when the said file was placed before the Revenue Officer, he suspected that something was amiss, on account of the fact that on the date borne out on the certificate, the erstwhile Officer had already been transferred and upon further verification, it was found that the signature has been forged and hence, upon learning about the involvement of the petitioner, in the criminal act the complaint has been lodged with jurisdictional police.
6. It is seen that the allegations are criminal in nature and are of serious proportion. Being a civil servant, the petitioner is required to act with integrity and honesty and that is the mandate of the Conduct Rules also.
7. In view of the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the considered view that it would be inappropriate to interfere with the impugned order as otherwise it would provide an opportunity to the petitioner to either mutilate records or tamper with the evidence of witnesses. Hence, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order of suspension. In view of the above order, the question of issuing of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to continue his service does not arise. Hence, writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BS