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.38417/2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN SRI. MAHABALESHWARA HEGDE S/O LATE GANESH HEGDE AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, DISTRICT MANAGER (INC) DR B R AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OPPOSITE TO SAMUDAYA BHAVANA 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010 AND RESIDING AT NO.582/A, 7TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, 11TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072 (BY SRI M NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR M/S SUBBA RAO & CO., ADVOCATES) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTEMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR B.R. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 9TH FLOOR ... PETITIONER VISVESARAIAH MINI TOWER BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE SAFAI KARMACHARI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD SOUTH WING GROUND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, PART OF UNITY BUILDING COMPLEX, NO.1/14, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027 (BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1, DR. S V GIRIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 ... RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION DTD:18.8.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner entered the service of the second respondent Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation as the First Division Assistant in the year 1986. Subsequently in the year 1993, he was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent and he continues in that capacity till date. The petitioner was placed incharge as District Manager, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation, at Kolar District by order dated 30.06.2017. By order dated 02.07.2018, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Corporation at Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. On 18.08.2018, the respondent- State Government placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he had committed an act of dereliction of duty in the matter of releasing grants to the beneficiaries contrary to the instruction of his higher officials. The petitioner has called in question the order of suspension passed by the respondent-State Government.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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).”
5. 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. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, while quashing the impugned order of suspension dated 18.08.2018 at Annexure ‘A’.
6. It is ordered accordingly.
JT/-
SD/- JUDGE