The Karnataka High Court permitted continuation in service despite the suspension order issued by the Commercial Tax Department for illegal gratification, while disciplinary proceedings were to continue.
These petitions are filed against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal on applications filed by the petitioners herein challenging the orders of suspension dated 25.11.2022. The Tribunal had dismissed the applications filed against the orders suspending the petitioners from service.
It was contended that the suspension orders came to be passed on the basis of a news item telecast in a private news channel i.e. Asianet Suvarna News on 25.11.2022 at 9.00 am alleging that officers belonging to the Commercial Tax Department, Madikeri and other areas were habitually accepting illegal gratification. On the basis of the airing of the said programme, it is stated that the petitioners were placed under suspension by order dated 25.11.2022 itself in most of these cases and on 28.11.2022 in four such cases.
Further submitted that the applications before the SAT were filed and an ex parte interim order of suspension was sought. Ex Parte interim order was granted in some cases and refused in others. Those petitioners who were aggrieved by the non-granting of the ex parte interim order approached this Court and this Court had granted stay of the impugned orders of suspension. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Tribunal and the order dated 05.10.2023 had been rendered by the Tribunal. Writ petitions were filed challenging the said order and interim orders of stay of suspension were again granted by this Court.
Mr. M S Bhagawath representing the petitioners submitted that in view of the long efflux of time as well as quashing of the FIRs as against the writ petitioners and as also the fact that they have been transferred out of the post which they held at the time when they were placed under suspension, there would be absolutely no purpose in continuing the suspension which has never been given effect to.
It was contended that charge memos have been issued to most of the petitioners to which replies have been submitted by some and disciplinary proceedings are initiated in some of such cases. It is further contended that in view of the quashing of the FIRs registered against the writ petitioners, there would be no purpose in continuing the orders of suspension as against them.
on the other hand, Mr. Reuben Jacob representing the respondent point out that though the FIRs lodged against the writ petitioners stood quashed for non-compliance of non-obtainment of prior sanction as provided under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the judgment in the batch of writ petitions specifically found that the sting operations were sustainable. It is further contended that the charge memos have been served on the officers concerned and most of them except two officers are no longer serving in the posts in which they were serving at the time of the suspension.
Further submitted that since the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the officers, quashing of the orders of suspension will prejudice the respondents since the proceedings have commenced against the officers concerned.
It was contended that since the orders of suspension had been kept in abeyance by orders of this Court, the period of six months as provided in Rule 10(5) of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 cannot be reckoned and therefore, there would be no question of automatic reinstatement in the instant cases. It is further contended that therefore the Government should be permitted to consider whether the extension of suspension is warranted in each of these cases.
The bench noticed that the orders of suspension had been kept in abeyance pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25388/2022 and connected matters by its order dated 22.12.2022. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the tribunal and the impugned order was passed on 05.10.2023. The same was challenged before this Court and this Court had again issued an interim order staying the suspension as against the petitioners herein.
Further opinion that at present all that was required to be done is to permit the petitioners, who had not suffered the consequence of the orders of suspension, to continue in service subject, of course, to the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against them. In case any of the writ petitioners are still working in the posts from which they were suspended it will be open to the respondents to consider whether they require to be moved out of the said posts.
A single member bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman directed that the suspension orders which were under challenge before the Tribunal shall not be given effect to. The petitioners shall be permitted to continue in service, disciplinary proceedings to continue.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
