The suspension of a public servant must be based on substantial grounds; arbitrary actions erode constitutional rights and the rule of law.

ORDER

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Appli ion has been filed under Section 19 of

“(1) Issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the Government Order No.e DPAR 33 SFP 2024, , dated 21.2.2024 passed by the second respondent which is produced herewith as Annexure A8 as the same is arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being without jurisdiction.

(2) Issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Ghatapraba Division, Gokak with immediate effect and with all consequential service benefits and

(3) To issue any other appropriate order or directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. ”

2. The above mentioned reliefs are claimed on the grounds as agitated in para 5 (1) to 5(4) of the Original Appli ion. The brief facts of the applicant are that the applicant joined the IFS cadre in the year 2022 and belongs to 2017 batch. During the course of his employment and discharge of duties, he came across illegal construction on the forest land. The applicant received several telephonic calls from persons, impersonating as the MLA who is the 5^th respondent. That FIR is already registered against one Arjun Vaddara for putting up illegal construction on the forest land and the criminal matter is pending adjudi ion. That on 8.1.2024, the applicant received a telephone call on his I-phone and the caller introduced himself as MLA, Raibag. Thinking that the caller is another impersonator, the applicant spoke in a stern and powerful voice questioning the caller. It appears that the 5^th respondent called the applicant and after recording the conversation released the same to the social media and electronic media. Thereafter he made a complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Minister which resulted in the preliminary enquiry. Though the applicant explained the entire incident and that he was not responsible for the misunderstanding, he is now kept under suspension, which according to the applicant is illegal and without jurisdiction. The applicant avers that the entire decision of the respondents 1 to 3 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and malafide and the same is violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . Hence, this present appli ion and on that basis he claims the reliefs on the grounds as agitated in the Original Appli ion.

3. On notice, Respondents 1 to 4 have filed their detailed reply statement. The Respondent 5 has also filed his reply statement separately.

4. Further, the applicant has filed his rejoinder statement to the reply statement of Respondents 1 to 4 as well as another rejoinder against the reply statement of Respondent 5.

5. When the case came up for final hearing on 26.11.2024, Senior Counsel Shri.S Basavaraj along with Shri.Udayashankar.M for the applicant and Shri.M.Rajakumar for respondents 1 to 4 were present and heard. None appeared for respondent no.5

6. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions of both parties.

7. From the record, facts of the case and contention of the parties, it is evident that this case is on a very narrow compass which is to be decided by us as to whether there were sufficient ground for suspension of the applicant and whether the suspension order dated 21.2.2024, i.e., the impugned Annexure A-8 is in order.

8. The official respondents themselves have cited the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal , (2013