Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 35585
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KRISHNA S DIXIT, MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI, JJ
SRI SRINATH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 17010 of 2024
Suspension of an employee cannot exceed six months without a Charge Memo, as per established legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Suspension Order - The Apex Court in AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2015 SC 2389, mandates that suspension cannot exceed six months without a Charge Memo - The Tribunal's order is voided as no Show Cause Notice was issued within the stipulated time. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasizes that the prerogative of suspension must align with established rules and timelines, and the absence of a formal enquiry invalidates the continuation of suspension. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the Suspension Order dated 24.01.2024, which was upheld by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, arguing that it exceeds the permissible duration without a Charge Memo.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the suspension is void due to the lack of a timely Show Cause Notice and directed the government to post the petitioner elsewhere.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension could continue beyond the stipulated period without a Charge Memo.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension cannot exceed the prescribed period without a formal enquiry, reaffirming the necessity of adhering to procedural rules.
Result: Petition allowed; suspension order voided.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel argues against suspension (Para 2) |
| 2. court reviews suspension legality (Para 3 , 4) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Petitioner, a civil servant is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for laying a challenge to the Suspension Order dated 24.01.2024, his Application No.596/2024 having been negatived by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 14.06.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Prof.M.Nagarajan vehemently argues that in terms of decision of the Apex Court in AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY vs. UNION OF INDIA , AIR 2015 SC 2389 , the Suspension Order cannot continue beyond the period of six months without issuing the Charge Memo and therefore, the impugned order of Tribunal is liable to be voided. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that it is always the prerogative of employer to keep his employee under suspension; ordinarily, the orders of suspension are not deeply examined by the writ court, once that exercise is done by the Tribunal; even otherwise, suspension would not cause any prejudice to the employee since he will be paid subsistence allowance.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under inasmuch as admittedly till date, no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner in terms of Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1957. The Apex Court in AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY supra, has observed that ordinarily the suspension of employee cannot be for a period beyond three months as provided in Central Rules subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the official respondents does not fit. 1957 Rules provide for a period of six months and that period has already expired, no enquiry having formally been instituted as yet. Therefore, the suspension can no longer be continued.
4. At this stage, learned AGA appearing for the respondents in all appreciable fairness submits that continuing the employee in the same place would have its own implications and therefore, if at all suspension is to be revoked/quashed, the government be permitted to post the petitioner elsewhere. This we agree with.
In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed;
the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside; as also the order of the suspension dated 24.01.2024 is voided by allowing petitioner’s Application No.596/2024; petitioner shall be given posting elsewhere, within a period of two weeks. The jurisdictional respondents are directed to commence and accomplish the enquiry within an outer limit of three months.
Costs made easy.
