IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 54159 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. SUBRAMANYA S. KUMTA, S/O SATHYANARAYANA KUMTA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SECTION OFFICER KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT RESIDING AT NO. E-5, KRISHNA GLADE, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. DIWAKARA K., ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001.
2. THE HON’BLE SPEAKER KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001.
3. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001.
4. THE JOINT SECRETARY (ADMIN.) KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001.
5. MR. MOHAN MURTHY UNDER SECRETARY KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO QUASH THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 8.11.2017 (ANNEXURE-B) ORDER NO.KLAS / A-3/30/DA/2017 ISSUED BY R1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND DISCRIMINATORY BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Subramanya S. Kumta, the petitioner, has challenged the legality of the suspension order dated 8.11.2017 passed by the Under Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 1.4.1995, the petitioner joined the services of the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. He was promoted in the regular course on merit, as a Section Officer. Despite the fact that he was diligent and honest, on 28.10.2017, the Deputy Director, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, submitted a complaint against the petitioner with regard to dereliction of duty. On 8.11.2017, the petitioner learnt through the Kannada news channel BTV that he has been suspended from his services. On 9.11.2017, the petitioner discovered that in the daily newspapers ‘Vijay Vani’ and ‘Praja Vani’, articles were published mentioning the petitioner’s name and the reason for his suspension from service. On 13.11.2017, the petitioner applied for getting a copy of the suspension order. And after securing the said order, he has filed the present petition before this court.
3. Mr. Diwakara K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the respondents were not justified in leaking the news to the press even before furnishing a copy of the suspension order to the petitioner. This method of informing the petitioner is against propriety and against any procedures known to law. It also embarrasses the petitioner socially and professionally. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. Thirdly, the Deputy Director who has filed the complaint against the petitioner is not even competent to do so. Therefore, the suspension order deserves to be interfered with by this court.
4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in pleading that even before the suspension order was served upon the delinquent officer through a proper channel, it should not have been leaked to the press as it certainly causes professional and social embarrassment to the delinquent officer. However, merely because the suspension order has been served upon the petitioner after he had requested for the same, would not make the suspension order an illegal one. Therefore, although this court does not appreciate the way the suspension order has been brought to the notice of the petitioner, the argument raised by the learned counsel is still unacceptable. This court can only hope and request the respondents to be careful in future and to ensure that the suspension orders are first received by the delinquent officers, rather than the delinquent officers coming to know of the suspension order through the press. The respondents should also realize that it not only creates an embarrassment for the delinquent officer, but also shakes the faith of the people in the institution itself, especially when the internal workings of the institution is being leaked to the press.
6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that on 26.10.2017, he took away the Attendance Register without seeking the prior permission of the concerned authority, and despite the fact that he was absent from 23.10.2017 to 25.10.2017, he has affixed his signature on the said dates in the Attendance Register. Further, that on 27.10.2017 he did not return the Attendance Register to his superior officer, thereby he had obstructed other officials from marking their attendance. Hence, the office could not even know, and does not even know, as to who attended the office on that day. The other allegations levelled against the petitioner are that the petitioner tends to enter and exit the office without seeking prior permission, and prior to the closing of the office hours.
Lastly, that he was directed to collect the draft copies of the ‘Legislation Patrike’ for the months of April, May and June 2017 to compare the same and submit the same to his superior officers. However, despite lapse of few months, this task is still unaccomplished. Considering the fact that the petitioner happens to be a Section Officer, a Gazetted Officer, he ought to be the role model for his subordinate officers in the office. However, the allegations levelled against him create the impression that he is neither abiding by the discipline of the office, nor permitting the office to run efficiently. In fact it seems that because of his actions, difficulties are being created in the smooth functioning of the office. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner.
7. The scope of interference by this court in a suspension order is extremely limited. The impugned order clearly reveals that a departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner. According to the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, a suspension order can be passed validly in case a departmental enquiry is contemplated, or in case a person is facing a criminal trial. Since in the present case a departmental enquiry is contemplated, the suspension order cannot be legally faulted with.
8. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.
9. However, it is clarified that any observation made by this court, hereinabove, should not adversely affect the outcome of the contemplated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The said observations are merely prima facie in nature; they should not be treated either by the enquiry officer, or by the Disciplinary Authority as being judicial findings. This court expects both the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority to carry out the departmental enquiry in a fair, objective, and reasonable manner, and strictly in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE KS