The power of suspension should be exercised after due application of mind, with reasons recorded in writing, and not on the dictate of any outside agency.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 28.7.2023 by which the petitioner comes to be placed under suspension invoking power of placing the petitioner under suspension under the rules.

2. Heard Sri.Vijay R Sarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Rajasekhar Buraji, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Santosh B Malagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner is an employee of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (hereinafter referred to as KRIDL for short). The petitioner is appointed in the year 1988 as an Assistant Engineer in KRIDL and at the relevant point in time was working as an Executive Engineer (In-charge) at Kalaburagi. The Lokayuktha draws up a source report on the basis of the places of work of the petitioner throughout his career from the year 1988 to 2020 and registers a crime for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income. The issue in the lis does not concern the veracity of the crime so registered against the petitioner, but the aftermath of the registration of the crime. Pursuant to the registration of the crime and two months after the conduct of search, the Lokayuktha recommends that the petitioner be placed under suspension and based upon the said recommendation an order is passed by the Competent Authority of KRIDL placing the petitioner under suspension. The placement of the petitioner under suspension is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the Competent Authority has not placed the petitioner under suspension on independent application of mind. It has only followed the dictate of the Lokayuktha. It is his submission that it is therefore unsustainable in law, as in terms of the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is required to apply its mind and then pass an order of placement of an employee under suspension. He would seek quashment of the said order.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Rajasekhar Buraji would vehemently refute the submission contending that there is independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority notwithstanding the fact that the Lokayuktha has recommended/directed placing the petitioner under suspension.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Santosh Malagoudar appearing for respondent No.2 would only submit with regard to the report and the communication that is made by the Lokayuktha.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, as they at this juncture, lie in a narrow compass. Before embarking upon consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the power of placement under suspension of an employee of KRIDL by the Disciplinary Authority. Suspension is governed under Rule 95 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules of KRIDL. It reads as follows:

Rule 95 SUSPENSION:

a) The appointing authority may place an employee under suspension:

i) Where a disciplinary proceeding against is contemplated or is pending: or

ii) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial.

b) An order of suspension made under this rule may be revoked by the authority which passed it.

c) Where on the conclusion of any inquiry against an employee, the authority competent to impose punishment;

i) make an order fully exhonerating or acquitting him, the period during which he was under suspension pending Inquiry shall be deemed to be a period of duty for which the employee shall be entitled to full pay and allowances as if he has not been placed under suspension.

ii) makes an order imposing any penalty other than a penalty of compulsory retirement or