Karnataka High Court Quashes Suspension of Government Servant After 4-Month Delay

High Court slams Lokayukta's dictate, affirms need for independent application of mind and statutory adherence

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the suspension of a government servant, Sri. Basavaraj, imposed four months after his custody, deeming the action unlawful and violative of statutory mandates. The decision, delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, underscores the necessity for competent authorities to independently assess material evidence before issuing suspension orders, thereby rejecting the mechanical application of deeming provisions.

Sri. Basavaraj, an attender with over four decades of service, was placed under suspension following a 96-hour custody related to allegations of demanding illegal gratification. The suspension order, issued at the behest of the Lokayukta, was criticized for lacking independent evaluation and failing to adhere to Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

The petitioner argued that the suspension was not only delayed but also devoid of statutory subsistence allowance, resulting in economic hardship and professional ostracism. The High Court concurred, stating that denying subsistence allowance during suspension is tantamount to economic and professional excommunication.

Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized the precautionary nature of suspension, warning against its misuse as a punitive measure. The court highlighted that the competent authority must thoroughly examine the case material and provide a reasoned order, in line with the statutory framework and a 2015 state circular emphasizing independent decision-making.

The court's decision reflects a commitment to uphold procedural fairness and protect employees from unjust administrative actions. The ruling allows the state to assign the petitioner to an alternative position, thus balancing administrative needs with the petitioner's rights.

Bottom Line:

Government servant placed under suspension for being in custody for more than 48 hours due to deeming fiction - Held, suspension order issued 4 months later on the dictate of Lokayukta without application of mind violates Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Competent Authority must comply with the statutory mandate and circular issued by the State for suspension orders - Denial of subsistence allowance during suspension is unlawful and amounts to economic and professional excommunication.

Statutory provision(s): Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 Rule 10(3), Rule 10(2)(a), Rule 10(5)(b)

Sri. Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka)(Dharwad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2801446