Denial Of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Amounts To Economic Excommunication; Suspension Order Found Invalid: Karnataka High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that payment of subsistence allowance is mandatory in all cases of suspension and that an employee cannot be denied this statutory entitlement. The Court made this observation while allowing a petition filed by a municipal employee who began service in 1985 and had completed 41 years of employment. The petitioner had been suspended four months after being taken into custody for over 48 hours in a Lokayukta trap case. The Court found that the suspension order, issued without due application of mind and contrary to statutory provisions, was unsustainable and quashed it, allowing the authorities to assign the employee to another suitable position if required.
The petitioner, Sri Basavaraj S/o Pundalikappa Nirugi, aged 59 years, serving as a Revenue Officer with the City Municipal Council, Bagalkote, challenged the suspension order dated July 22, 2025, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Urban Development. The petitioner had joined service in 1985 as an attender and had served for 41 years. In 2015, while working as a Revenue Officer, a complaint was registered before the Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner and another officer demanded illegal gratification for performing official duties. Following the complaint, a trap was conducted, primarily targeting another officer, but the petitioner was also implicated and detained in custody for 96 hours between March 10 and March 14, 2025.
Relying on the deeming provision under Rule 10(2)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, which provides that a government servant detained for more than 48 hours is deemed to be under suspension, the authorities passed the impugned suspension order four months later. The petitioner contended that the order was fundamentally flawed as it was issued mechanically and long after his release from custody. He submitted that the alleged demand for illegal gratification was baseless, as the work in question had been completed before the complaint was filed. He further argued that the authorities acted solely on the direction of the Lokayukta without independent assessment, and that he had not been paid any subsistence allowance during his suspension period, rendering the order unsustainable.
The State defended the action, stating that the suspension was mandatory as the petitioner was in custody for more than 48 hours, invoking the deeming fiction under Rule 10(2)(a). The State, however, conceded that subsistence allowance, if unpaid, could be released upon the Court’s direction. The Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, represented by Advocate Vishwanath Hegde, supported the State’s position.
The Court recorded that the authority must apply its mind and examine the record before placing an employee under suspension, stating that “Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules mandates the Competent Authority while placing a Government servant under suspension shall examine the relevant material relating to the case and consider whether there is prima facie evidence to support the charges made against the Government servant and if it is satisfied on such examination, it shall pass necessary orders.”
It further stated that suspension cannot be mechanical, observing that “the Rule obligates the Authority to examine the record, assess whether prima facie material exists and only thereafter, pass an order of suspension, thus making the order of suspension, not to be a mechanical consequence.”
On the operation of the deeming fiction, the Court noted that “whether the deeming fiction would obviate the obligation of the Competent Authority to comply with Rule 10(3) is what is necessary to be noticed.”
Referring to the 2015 State circular, the Court explained that it stemmed from a Karnataka Administrative Tribunal order which held that “it would be unreasonable to consign an employee to indefinite suspension merely because he was once in custody for 48 hours and also observes that suspension should not be ordered on the direction of the Lokayuktha.”
The Court recorded that “the circular underscores that the Competent Authority must apply its mind and pass a reasoned order in conformity with Rule 10(3).”
In addressing the petitioner’s case, the Court found procedural violations and financial deprivation, stating that “not only the mandate of Rule 10(3) is flouted, the petitioner has admittedly not been paid even a rupee of subsistence allowance.”
The Court recorded that “grant of subsistence allowance is mandatory in any circumstance of suspension. He cannot be denied his statutory subsistence allowance.”
It further observed that depriving an employee of livelihood without following legal safeguards is “nothing short of economic and professional excommunication.”
Discussing the nature of suspension, the Court stated that “suspension is trite, not a penalty. It is a precautionary measure, yet when wielded without any reason or restraint, it degenerates into punishment, sometimes more severe than extreme penalties.”
The Court noted the psychological and economic impact of prolonged suspension, remarking that “for dismissal atleast is final, while suspension keeps the sword hanging endlessly over the head of the employee, robbing his peace, dignity and sustenance.”
It added that “in certain circumstances, it is worse than penalty. Therefore, in such cases, the Competent Authority should comply with the rigour of Rule 10(3) and the circular so issued by the State on 13-01-2015.”
Concluding its observations, the Court found that “the impugned suspension is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The order is vitiated by non-application of mind, violative of Rule 10(3) of the Rules and contrary to the Circular dated 13-01-2015,” adding that “what cannot be countenanced is his consignment to indefinite suspension on the tenuous ground of 2 days custody followed by bail.”
The Court concluded that “the impugned suspension is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.” Justice Nagaprasanna held that the suspension order was “vitiated by non-application of mind, violative of Rule 10(3) of the Rules and contrary to the Circular dated 13-01-2015.”
“Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-07-2025 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-L stands quashed. The respondents are at liberty to post the petitioner to any other position.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Sunil S. Desai, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, High Court Government Pleader; Sri. Vishwanath Hegde, Advocate.
Case Title: Sri Basavaraj S/o. Pundalikappa Nirugi v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:14122
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 106080 of 2025 (S-DIS)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
