IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.57992 OF 2018 [S-KAT] BETWEEN:
SRI. PARSHWANATH @ P.S. VARUR, SON OF LATE SHIVAPPA B. VARUR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KARNATAKA STATE FOREST ACADEMY, GUNGARAGATTI, DHARWAD-580 011. … PETITIONER [BY SRI. M.KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, NO.49, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. I.THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.12.2018 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.8859 OF 2018 BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AS AT ANNEXURE-A.
* * * THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 in placing the petitioner on suspension, he filed Application No.8859 of 2018 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [‘Tribunal’ for short].
2. The Tribunal by the impugned order keeping in view that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner herein and that he was allowed to work up to 29.11.2018, the date on which the impugned order of suspension was passed, granted liberty to the petitioner herein to make a representation for revocation of the suspension order. Questioning the said order, the present petition is filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents filed a memo before this Court stating that the representation made by the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal has been considered and rejected. He further submits that even an appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the said order.
4. The liberty granted by the petitioner is availed by him. In view of the memo filed accompanied by the documents, we do not find any ground to continue this petition further. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*