Case Name: Dr. Sathishkumar S Hosamani v. The State of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 10727 OF 2024
Dated: May 16, 2024
Quorum: Justice R Devdas and Justice J M Khazi
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts of the present case centre the petitioner, who is the Director of the Department of Public Libraries, is suing this court because he was upset that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal rejected his application. In that application, the petitioner had questioned the validity of the contested suspension order, which was issued on March 11, 2024 and was assigned the number EP.114.LIB.2023.
The petitioner, serving as the Director of the Department of Public Libraries, has brought this lawsuit before the court after the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application. In his application, the petitioner challenged the legitimacy of the suspension order issued on March 11, 2024.
The petitioner, who holds the position of Director of the Department of Public Libraries, has initiated legal proceedings in this court, expressing dissatisfaction with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his application. The application in question sought to challenge the validity of a suspension order that had been issued against him. This suspension order designated was dated March 11, 2024. The petitioner contends that the suspension was unjustified and is seeking the court’s intervention to overturn the tribunal’s decision and invalidate the contested suspension order.
ISSUES:
- The issue here is whether a suspension order can be legitimately issued by the competent authority. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s summary, such an order can only be made after considering all available material to determine whether it is advisable for the delinquent employee to continue performing his duties or if retaining him in office is likely to hinder or undermine the ongoing inquiry.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
The learned counsel for the appellants fiercely and strongly argued that the State Government, the respondent, issued the order of suspension without even taking the petitioner’s response into consideration. Consequently, the provision outlined in sub-rule (3) Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 was invoked, which states that the competent authority must review the pertinent case materials and determine whether there is prima facie evidence to support the charges made against the government employee. If the competent authority is convinced that there is prima facie evidence, it must suspend the petitioner based solely on that examination.
It was also argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court provided a summary of the matter, stating that the competent authority may only issue a suspension order after considering all relevant information regarding whether it would be best to let the delinquent continue to carry out his duties in the workplace or whether doing so would likely impede or frustrate the investigation. It is necessary for the responsible authority to take into account both the type of evidence that is available and the seriousness of the alleged misbehaviour.
In addition, the petitioners contended that they should be held accountable for events that happened more than five or six years ago. Furthermore, only minor charges are being made against the petitioner; within the pertinent period, only technical inconsistencies are being claimed and brought against the petitioner.
Acquired knowledge Senior Counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the committee’s report could not be the only factor taken into consideration when passing the order of suspension. However, it is evident that the relevant authorities did not take the petitioner’s response into account.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants were sharply and passionately rejected by the learned counsel of the respondents claimed that Rule 10(3) does not include a step where the petitioner’s response would be taken into consideration. The Learned Additional Advocate General argues that the competent authority, taking into account the material presented to it, passes the order of suspension in accordance with Rule 10(3) in the normal course of business.
However, since the action was started as a result of a complaint submitted by a Legislative Council member, the State Government felt it appropriate to form a committee to investigate the claims made by the Honourable Member of the Legislative Council after determining that further information would be needed in relation to the member’s complaint.
However, the Tribunal requested the original records, which were presented to the Tribunal. After reviewing the original records, which included the note sheets, the Tribunal concluded that the State Government had followed the procedure outlined in Rule 10(3) and that, as a result, the challenged order issued by the Tribunal was correct.
The learned additional advocate general further submitted that, even with regard to paragraphs Nos. 21 and 22, which the learned Senior Counsel relying upon on behalf of the petitioners, the authority must consider all the material available and determine whether, in a particular case, it is best to permit the delinquent to continue performing his duties in the office or whether his continued presence in the office is likely to impede or frustrate the investigation. In any case, Rule 10(3) does not specify or consider a scenario in which the delinquent officer and the suspension order are contacted for a response.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court observed that when comparing the provisions of Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 to Rule 11(2), which expressly states that the Delinquent Officer will be asked to respond, and which specifies the circumstances and steps in which the Disciplinary Authority must take into account the response, the Disciplinary Authority must make well-reasoned decisions based on the information provided.
The court further held that even though the Committee that was established in this case requested a reply from the petitioner, it cannot be said that the impugned order of suspension should also stimulate the review of the petitioner’s reply because Rule 10(3) does not explicitly require the consideration of the Delinquent Officer’s reply, nor does it contemplate such a course of action. After reviewing the accusations made against the petitioner contained in the contested suspension order, it is impossible to say that the accusations are not grave.
Finally, the court laid down that All of these issues, in any case, need to be taken into consideration later on. Furthermore, as the learned AAG correctly pointed out, the respondent Disciplinary Authority is obligated to reevaluate its order of suspension or review its order of suspension after reviewing the reply that would be caused by the petitioner. This is because the petitioner has been served with a charge memo and is now required to submit a written response.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.
