Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri. Basavaraj S/o. Pundalikappa Nirugi, aged about 59 years, was working as a Revenue Officer in the City Municipal Council, Bagalkote. He was appointed as an attender in 1985 and had rendered 41 years of service. In 2015, a complaint was registered before the Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner and another demanded illegal gratification for performance of duty. A trap was laid against another officer, and the petitioner was taken into custody as accused No.1 along with accused No.2. He remained in custody for 96 hours before being released on bail. On the ground that the rules deem an employee under suspension for having been in custody for more than 48 hours, an order dated 22-07-2025 was passed placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad. The court considered the validity of the suspension order. The court noted that the suspension was deemed under Rule 10(2)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which applies when an employee is detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. However, since the petitioner was released on bail, the rationale for the deemed suspension ceased to exist. The court held that the suspension order was not sustainable and quashed it. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Deemed Suspension - Rule 10(2)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - The petitioner, a Revenue Officer, was arrested and remained in custody for 96 hours, leading to a deemed suspension order under Rule 10(2)(b). The court held that once the petitioner is released on bail, the suspension must be revoked as the rationale for deemed suspension ceases. The impugned order was quashed. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the suspension order. The court allowed the petition, holding that the suspension order was not sustainable as the petitioner was no longer in custody. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suspension order dated 22-07-2025 placing the petitioner under suspension is valid and sustainable in law, given that the petitioner was released on bail and the suspension was based on deemed suspension under Rule 10(2)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-07-2025 bearing No.NA AA E 109 DMK 2025 (E) passed by respondent No.1 is quashed.
Law Points
- Suspension order deemed under Rule 10(2)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1957
- automatic upon custody exceeding 48 hours
- but must be revoked upon release on bail
- Writ of Certiorari lies against suspension order if it continues without justification.
