The court affirmed that a preliminary inquiry justifying suspension must address potential interference with investigations and maintain discipline, ruling no legal irregularity in the Tribunal's decision.

ORDER :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

The question for consideration in this petition is whether this Court must opine that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] has erred in refusing to interfere with the decision dated 22.09.2025 to keep a Station House Officer of a police station under suspension. This Court, at the first instance in W.P.No.360683/2025, was called upon to interfere at the Tribunal’s refusal in Application No.4298/2025 to grant an interim order against the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension, and presently, the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 06.11.2025, has refused to interfere with the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension.

2. The reason for the third respondent’s decision to keep the petitioner under suspension is in the circumstances, which could be stated concisely thus.

2.1 A head constable, who is assigned the duties of a sentry at the station on 04.09.2025 and goes out of the station premises for a tea break, asserts that he was constrained to take a person [who is referred to as ‘the entrepreneur’] who had travelled from Andhra Pradesh into custody because he was abusive and that on instructions from the petitioner, he has registered a NCR [Non-cognizable Report]. A friend of the entrepreneur approaches the petitioner the next day with a complaint that the head constable who had to be on sentry duty had relieved him of Rs.10,00,000/- [from out of Rs.55,00,000/-].

2.2 This effort to lodge a complaint did not result in any proceeding, and hence a complaint is lodged with the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 08.09.2025, and as if on cue, the petitioner has called for an explanation from the concerned. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, on receipt of the complaint on 08.09.2025, has filed a report with the fourth respondent who has conducted a preliminary enquiry as contemplated under the Karnataka Police Manual [for short, 'the Manual']. It is based on this report that the third respondent has decided on 22.09.2025 to keep the petitioner under suspension along with others.

3. The Tribunal, recording these circumstances and the rival presentations on the facts, has opined that there is a preliminary enquiry preceding the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension; and that there is no irregularity or illegality in the process of the decision making to keep the petitioner under suspension. The Tribunal, while referring to the competent authority applying its mind in recording satisfaction that there are sufficient reasons to keep the employees under suspension, has concluded that there is a prima facie case to keep the petitioner under suspension.

4. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Dilli Rajan who is on record for the petitioner, emphasizes that [a] when the petitioner received a call in the early morning, he only instructed the caller [the Head Constable] to take action to register a NCR because he was only informed of the circumstances as aforementioned, [b] the reasons as found in the preliminary enquiry are that the petitioner was not diligent in issuing the instructions for sentry duties and that he has instructed a constable who was not the station house officer to register a NCR., [c] an instruction to register a NCR in accordance with the procedure over telephone or the failure of the Sentry to follow instructions cannot be a reason to keep the petitioner under suspension.

5. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy canvasses, taking this Court through the detailed enquiry report, that even according to the complainant when the petitioner was informed about the grievance, he has interacted not only with