IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 33384 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

MAHESH KUMAR B K S/O.LATE B.KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, ILWALA POLICE STATION, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-571130.

SUSPENDED ON 28.06.2025, RESIDING AT NO.68, 1^ST STAGE, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, GAYATHRIPURAM, Digitally signed by MYSORE-570019.

VANAMALA N Location:

HIGH …PETITIONER COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560009.

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH DIVISION, MYSORE-571107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. SHIVAREDDY., AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BANGALORE DATED 10.10.2025 IN APPLICATION No. 3090/2025 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C; b) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.06.2025 IN No. 02/EST-3/EV/2025/26 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A1 IN (ANNEXURE-A) OF THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner is unsuccessful in his application in No.3090/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The petitioner has filed this application with the Tribunal calling in question the second respondent's order dated 28.06.2025, and the second respondent by this order has kept the petitioner, who was working as Police Sub Inspector [PSI], Ilvala Police Station, Mysuru under suspension.

2. The second respondent has also kept some other police officers under suspension by the same order. The Tribunal, which has elaborately referred to the antecedent circumstances, has refused to interfere opining that it is for the Disciplinary Authority and not the Courts to decide on whether an employee should be kept under suspension during inquiry and that the decision to keep an employee under suspension does not amount to imposing a punishment.

3. Mr. A. Nagarajappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the afore propositions, submits that the petitioner's grievance with the Tribunal's refusal to interfere with the second respondent's order dated 28.06.2025 must be considered in the light of the following circumstances: 3.1 The petitioner, as part of the initial investigating team, has investigated the first information received from Mrs.Mallige’s husband [the first informant] that she had died and the receipt of information that the dead body of an unknown person was seen.

3.2 The investigating team, after the investigation with even Mrs. Mallige’s mother identifying the clothes as found on the body of the unknown person, has filed a charge sheet against Mrs.Mallige’s husband.

3.3 During the trial, Mrs.Mallige is examined as a witness, and that is the reason for the Sessions Court in S.C.No.292/2022 to opine that there is mischief by the officials who are part of the investigation and the Courts cannot allow such lapses in the investigation.

3.4 The Sessions Court, insofar as another officer, has opined that he would be the author of the entire false case and that he has fabricated the evidence to implicate the accused. The Sessions Court, pursuant to such observation, has also directed the Inspector General of Police [the second respondent] to initiate departmental proceedings on all those who were part of the investigation. The Sessions Court has