Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
Sri S. Murthy S/o. Late K. Siddaiah – Appellant
Versus
The Special Board Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat Vidhana Soudha Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore – 560 001 – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 537 of 2019 (SRES)
Decided on : 02-07-2020
Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 - Rule 10 - Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules, 2003 - Rules 8 and 9(o) - Order of suspension - Retired from service – Employment and service - Whether petitioner filed his explanation to Articles of Charges or not and failed to ascertain from petitioner - Whether petitioner has made out a case for a direction to official respondent regarding payment of subsistence allowance or not - Whether petitioner has made out prima facie case for reinstatement subject to result of disciplinary proceedings initiated or not - Whether petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with reference to order of suspension prima facie petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with order of suspension insofar as quashing at same time order of suspension is only a temporary measure - Whether to continue Government servant under suspension or not as it deems fit - Petitioner feeling aggrieved by order of suspension presented this petition on various grounds and he has also sought for an interim relief - Matter was heard for consideration of interim prayer and it was rejected - Petitioner aggrieved by rejection of interim relief preferred Writ Appeal was disposed of Extract of order - Court hold that no error has been committed by learned Single Judge - However while court decline to interfere with impugned order court must make a note here that appellant cannot be kept under suspension for a long period without initiating departmental/ disciplinary inquiry proceedings – Therefore on failure on part of respondents-Authorities to initiate departmental enquiry within a reasonable time and/or its failure to conclude enquiry within a reasonable time it will be always open for appellant to file a fresh petition seeking to quash order of suspension – Held, Suspension does not put an end to relationship of master and servant between employer and employee - It simply keeps employee away from work situation during pendency of some departmental/domestic/criminal proceedings against him/her - Object and purpose of placing an employee under suspension is to keep him away from a position where he can interfere with conduct of inquiry or tamper with the documentary or oral evidence in any manner or where having regard to nature of charges against him it is felt that it would be unsafe to continue to vest in him/her power of post - It is a clear principle of natural justice that delinquent employee when placed under suspension is entitled to represent that departmental proceedings should be concluded with reasonable diligence and within a reasonable period of time - If such a principle were not to be recognized it would imply that executive is being vested a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its employee/officer under disability and distrust for an indefinite duration - Total period of suspension namely both in respect of investigation and disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily exceed six months - In exceptional cases where it may not be possible to adhere to said time limit of six months disciplinary authority or competent authority should undertake to review of suspension by recording reasons to continue suspension - In so far as review of suspension periodically Government has issued guidelines from time to time like review of suspension once in three months or once in six months and prolonged suspension without issue of charge sheet/charge memo - In number of cases Courts of law had interfered and revoked order of suspension for reason that no proceedings had been commenced against suspended employee - In order words suspension of an employee for a long period is not legally sustainable particularly where there can be no apprehension that employee would be in a position to influence witnesses or tamper with records - Continued suspension may become unnecessary when there is no possibility of official concerned tampering with records or influencing witnesses - In present case charge memo has been issued within three months from date of suspension order - Where a Government Servant has been suspended by an authority other than Government and final orders in inquiry pending against him have not been passed within a period of six months from date of order of suspension - In terms of aforesaid provision Special Board is bound by aforesaid provision to extent of examining petitioner’s case and to take a decision - Official respondents/competent authority have failed to take note of Rule 98 of KCSRs Apex Court decision cited supra read with DPAR Order/Circular issued from time to time in respect of regulating suspension of an employee/officer and to undertake review of suspension - Prima facie official respondent/competent authority have not adhered to aforesaid decision, Rule 98 of KCSRS and Government Orders and failed to undertake review of suspension from time to time - In view of these facts and circumstances and fact that order of suspension and Inquiring authority has not completed inquiry proceedings during period even though three months time limit was stipulated to complete inquiry proceedings - That apart perusal of records it is evident that inquiry was initiated while asking petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks - Inquiring Authority and Presenting Officer were appointed without waiting for petitioner’s explanation to Articles of Charge whereas petitioner filed his explanation to Articles of Charge - Disciplinary Authority was required to adhere to Sub Rules 4 to 6 of Rule 11 of Rules, 1957 - Writ Petition stands disposed of
ORDER :
In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order of suspension dated 27.12.2018 passed under Rules 8 and 9(o) read with Schedule – II of The Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2003 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2003’ for short) and Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘CCA Rules’ for short) by the Office of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Hereinafter referred to as ‘KLAS’ for short) under the orders of Special Board on the allegation that petitioner while working as a Secretary in the office of the KLAS, during the period 2016-17 when Winter Session was in vogue at Belagavi’s Suvarna Vidhana Soudha for which certain expenses was incurred by the Government, in this regard, petitioner is alleged to have committed certain financial irregularities. Arising out of these events, the then Speaker sent a note on 23.11.2018 to the Chief Secretary to initiate a discreet inquiry and submit a report within a week. Pursuant to the aforesaid note Finance Department constituted a team of 5 members, headed by Additional Director for Karnataka State Accounts Department. Report was forwarded by the Chief Secretary. KLAS is of the opinion that there were certain alleged financial irregularities stated to have been committed by the petitioner. Thus, he was placed under suspension on 27.12.2018.
2. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 27.12.2018 presented this petition on various grounds and he has also sought for an interim relief. On 26.03.2019, the matter was heard for consideration of interim prayer and it was rejected. Petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of interim relief, preferred Writ Appeal No.1040/2019 and Writ Appeal was disposed of on 19.12.2019 Extract of the order reads as under:
(i) We hold that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge;
(ii) However, while we decline to interfere with the impugned order, we must make a note here that the appellant cannot be kept under suspension for a long period without initiating departmental/ disciplinary inquiry proceedings. Therefore, on the failure on the part of the respondents-Authorities to initiate departmental enquiry within a reasonable time and/or its failure to conclude the enquiry within a reasonable time, it will be always open for the appellant to file a fresh petition seeking to quash the order of suspension;
(iii) We make it clear that the observations made in this order and the findings recorded are only for the purposes of examining the existence of a prima facie case. The learned Single Judge shall dispose of the writ petition without being influenced by the said prima facie findings;
(iv) Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to the costs.
When things stood thus, petitioner filed an interim application i.e., I.A.1/2020 for direction wherein it was pointed out that petitioner had not been paid subsistence allowance in accordance with The Karnataka Civil Services Rules (Hereinafter referred to as ‘KCSR’ for short). In the meanwhile, Articles of Charge were issued on 02.02.2019 while granting two weeks time to file objection/explanation whereas petitioner submitted his objection/explanation on 22.05.2019. Official respondents without waiting for petitioner’s reply/objection to the Articles of Charges read with notice dated 02.02.2019, proceeded to appoint Inquiring Officer and Presenting Officer to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged charges stated in the Articles of Charge. It was further directed the Inquiring Authority to complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of 3 months, such proceedings is without waiting for the petitioner’s explanation to Articles of Charges. Disciplinary authority has not recorded as to whether petitioner filed his explanation to Articles of Charges or not and faile
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
