IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.10728 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
V. MARESHA S/O SANNA MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O SIRAVARA, MANVI TALUK RAICHUR DISTRICT – 583 124. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT, M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SELECTION AUTHORITY & MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 022.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 022. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. NAGAIAH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the suspension order dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure-F).
2. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as Principal on 06.06.2012 and his probation has been declared as satisfactory. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation that at the time of selection to the post of Principal. He had given certain false information. The respondents have not disputed that enquiry is pending, Article of Charges have been framed under Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, such initiation of enquiry as on 01.03.2017. In this background, question of prolonging suspension may not be attracted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDARI v. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389, this decision has been taken into consideration in the latest judgment in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. (HOME) v. PROMOD KUMAR IPS & ANR. in Civil Appeal No.8427-8428 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.12112-12113 of 2017) D.D. on August 21, 2018, paragraph No,23 reads as under:
“23. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first Respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the High Court that the Appellant State has the liberty to appoint the first Respondent in a non sensitive post.”
3. In terms of principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, Suspending Authority is hereby directed to consider for revocation while taking into consideration the aforesaid decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above observations, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-