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. 33395 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SRINIVAS. T. R.

S/O LATE T R RAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (VVIP SECURITY DIVISION)

OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, R/AT GROUND FLOOR, NEW NO.9, PID NO.92, 8^TH CROSS, J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 006.

Digitally …PETITIONER signed by VANAMALA (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

N AND:

Location:

HIGH COURT OF

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560001.

4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (ADMN)

OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU - 560001.

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VVIP SECURITY DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE

226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.10.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION No. 2475/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

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, an Inspector of Police attached with the VVIP Security Division, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, is unsuccessful in his Application No.2475/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, the Tribunal]. The petitioner has invoked the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 impugning the fourth respondent's order dated 18.5.2025 and the second respondent's confirmation of such order by the order dated 21.05.2025.

2. The petitioner is kept under suspension under these impugned orders. The imputation against the petitioner, in short, is that on 20.04.2025 he was present at the house of a retired Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, who has breathed his last under circumstances that have been investigated, and that he has spoken to the media about the cause of the death. The Tribunal, repelling the contention on behalf of the petitioner that he is kept under suspension contrary to the Karnataka State Police [Disciplinary Proceedings] Rules, 1965 [for short, the 'Police Disciplinary Rules'], has opined that the decision is as contemplated under these Rules.

3. The Tribunal has, insofar as the petitioner's case that he cannot be kept under suspension for a period beyond six months, directed the third and the fourth respondents to constitute a Review Committee for a decision on the continuation of the petitioner under suspension.The Tribunal has referred to the Circular dated 28.06.2024. This Circular dated 28.06.2024 reads that if the continuation of an officer under suspension beyond six months is inevitable, the competent authority must compulsorily ensure that all the circumstances are reviewed by a Committee and that its recommendations, with reasons in support thereof, are placed with the State Government for a decision.

4. Sri Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that [i] this Court must intervene because the continuation of the petitioner under suspension with the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings [with the Charge Memo dated 25.08.2025] would be impermissible in law, [ii] even according to Rule 5(6) of the Rules, if the disciplinary proceedings cannot culminate in a final order within six months, the State Government must take an appropriate decision and [iii] in the present case, such period would expir