##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18740-DB

WP No. 110052 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

WRIT PETITION NO. 110052 OF 2025 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI PRAKASH S/O. BASANNA NAYAKA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SHRIASTHEDAR,

TASHIDAR OFFICE GANGAVATHI,

PRESENTLY UNDER SUSPENSION,

TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL,

R/O. ANNEGUNDI ROAD, GADIYAPPA LAYOUT,

VIRAPUR, GANGAVATHI.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by

V MI J KA AY NAL KA UK PS PH IMI (BY SRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

K DA HR AN RA WT AA DKA

BENCH

Date: 2025.12.26

18:26:58 +0530 AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 01.

2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER

KALBURGI DIVISION,

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18740-DB

WP No. 110052 of 2025

HC-KAR

KALBURGI DISTRICT-583231.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT

OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 13/11/2025

PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.11191/2025 VIDE

ANNEXURE-B, AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.,.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18740-DB

WP No. 110052 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)

The petitioner has approached this Court calling in

question the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for

short, ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.11191/2025, whereby,

the Tribunal declined to grant interim protection against the

order of suspension dated 21.10.2025 passed by

respondent No.2 and has sought consequential interim

relief.

2. Brief facts

The petitioner is the Government Servant working as

Sherestidar/Deputy Tahshildar under the Revenue

Department. While he was discharging his duties, he was

Supervisor in Bhoomi/Bhoomi Centre Section. On

28.08.2023, the petitioner was relieved from the said post

and thereafter, posted elsewhere.

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18740-DB

WP No. 110052 of 2025

HC-KAR

3. Subsequently, an issue arose relating to

non-production of certain documents pertaining to

Bhoomi/Bhoomi Kendra, which were in the custody of the

Village Administrative Officer. The said Officer was placed

under suspension for non-maintenance and non-production

of records, though the suspension was later revoked on

21.08.2025.

4. Respondent No.2 passed an order dated

21.10.2025 placing the petitioner under suspension on the

allegation of lack of supervision. Aggrieved, the petitioner

approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal by order dated

13.11.2025 refused to grant interim relief, prompting the

petitioner to file the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the order of suspension is founded solely on alleged lack of

supervision, without any prima facie finding of misconduct,

moral turpitude or grave delinquency. It is submitted that

the Village Administrative Officer, who was primarily

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18740-DB

WP No. 110052 of 2025

HC-KAR

responsible for maintaining records, was initially suspended

and later reinstated, whereas, the petitioner has been

subjected to suspension belatedly and arbitrarily. Reliance

is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Union of India and Another v. Ashok Kumar

Agarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 to contend that the suspension cannot be used

as punitive or vindictive measure and must be supported by

the strong prima facie material.

6. Learned AGA sought to justify the suspension on

the ground of supervisory lapse on the part of the

petitioner.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

respective parties and on perusing the material on record,

prima facie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document