Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri S. Murthy, was working as Secretary in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat. He was initially appointed as Stenographer and promoted to Under Secretary in 2004. In 2005, he was placed under suspension and a disciplinary enquiry was held, resulting in compulsory retirement. He challenged the same in WP No.15438/2009, and the High Court set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Subsequently, on 27.12.2018, the appellant was again suspended by an order bearing No. KA Vi Sa Sa/Aa-3/51/Say.A/2018. He filed WP No.537/2019 seeking to quash the suspension order and for interim stay. The learned Single Judge rejected the interim prayer on 26.03.2019. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, found that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The suspension order was passed without proper application of mind and appeared to be a colourable exercise of power. The balance of convenience was in favour of the appellant and irreparable injury would be caused if stay was not granted. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the suspension order dated 27.12.2018 was stayed pending disposal of the writ petition. The respondents were directed to permit the appellant to continue in service and pay his salary.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Interim Relief - Prima Facie Case - The appellant, a Secretary in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, was suspended on 27.12.2018. The Single Judge rejected interim stay. The Division Bench held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief, as the suspension order was passed without proper application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice. The balance of convenience was in favour of the appellant and irreparable injury would be caused if stay was not granted. (Paras 2-5)
B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Reinstatement - The appellant had been earlier subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting in compulsory retirement, which was set aside by the High Court in WP No.15438/2009 with reinstatement. The subsequent suspension order was challenged as being based on the same allegations. The Court noted that the suspension order appeared to be a colourable exercise of power. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the interim prayer for stay of the suspension order dated 27.12.2018 pending disposal of the writ petition.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.537/2019 is set aside. The suspension order dated 27.12.2018 (Annexure-A) is stayed pending disposal of the writ petition. The respondents are directed to permit the appellant to continue in service and pay his salary.
Law Points
- Suspension order
- Interim relief
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
- Service law
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (12) 33
Writ Appeal No.1040 of 2019 (S-RES)
Hon’ble Mr. Abhay S. Oka, Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar
Shri A.S. Ponnanna (Senior Counsel) for Shri V. Rangaramu (Appellant); Shri Prabhuling K Navadagi (Advocate General) along with Shri I. Tharanath Poojary (Additional Government Advocate) (Respondents)
The Special Board, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat; The Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat; The Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against rejection of interim prayer for stay of suspension order in a service matter.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.537/2019 and to stay the operation and implementation of the suspension order dated 27.12.2018.
Filing Reason
The appellant was suspended by order dated 27.12.2018, which he challenged as illegal and without proper application of mind. The Single Judge rejected his interim prayer for stay.
Previous Decisions
The appellant had earlier been subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting in compulsory retirement, which was set aside by the High Court in WP No.15438/2009 with reinstatement and consequential benefits.
Issues
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the interim prayer for stay of the suspension order dated 27.12.2018 pending disposal of the writ petition.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the suspension order was passed without proper application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice, and that he had a prima facie case for grant of interim relief.
The respondents opposed the appeal, submitting that the suspension was justified and the Single Judge had correctly exercised discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief as the suspension order was passed without proper application of mind and appeared to be a colourable exercise of power. The balance of convenience was in favour of the appellant and irreparable injury would be caused if stay was not granted.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant who is the original writ petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 26th March, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by which, an interim prayer made by the petitioner seeking to stay the operation and enforcement of the order of suspension dated 27th December, 2018 (Annexure-A) was rejected.
The appellant was working as Secretary on the establishment of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat.
By virtue of an order passed by this Court in an earlier writ petition being writ petition No.15438 of 2009 filed by the appellant, the orders of both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were set aside and consequential directions were issued and he was reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.
Procedural History
The appellant filed WP No.537/2019 challenging the suspension order dated 27.12.2018 and sought interim stay. The learned Single Judge rejected the interim prayer on 26.03.2019. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act: Section 4
