Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad delivered an oral order directing that a writ petition challenging a suspension order be allowed. The court set aside the suspension order issued against a serving officer and instructed the concerned authorities to conclude the departmental enquiry in accordance with law. The bench made it clear that any observations recorded in the order would not impede the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry. The court held that the suspension issued after a lapse of several months from the alleged incident served no useful purpose, particularly when a departmental enquiry had already been initiated. The suspension order was therefore quashed, and the respondents were mandated to complete the enquiry process without delay.

The matter arose from the issuance of a suspension order dated 04 July 2025 against a Deputy Secretary employed in the Karnataka State Legislative Council. The petitioner had initially joined service as a Stenographer on 23 April 1997 and thereafter received several promotions: as Senior Assistant on 15 July 2011, Section Officer on 07 April 2015, Under Secretary on 10 July 2020, and finally Deputy Secretary on 17 August 2023.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Arbitration Act — Delivery of Award to Govt Official Unconnected With Case Not Valid Service on State Under S.31(5)

The record shows that on 20 November 2024 a communication was issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR), addressed to all departments regarding the conduct of Constitution Day celebrations on 26 November 2024. On 25 November 2024, a circular was issued by the Principal Secretary, DPAR, directing arrangements for the function within the respondent Council.

During the Constitution Day function held on 26 November 2024, the portraits of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar were not placed. Following this omission, a complaint was lodged by employees of the Council on 03 December 2024. On the basis of the complaint, notice was issued to the petitioner on 12 February 2025. The petitioner submitted her reply on 04 March 2025 denying responsibility for the alleged lapse and clarifying that she neither directed the omission nor was responsible for organizing the function. She also stated that other officers were equally responsible but no action had been taken against them.

Despite the reply, on 04 July 2025 respondent authorities invoked Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and placed the petitioner under suspension. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking relief.

During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel contended that suspension is justified only in cases where strong prima facie evidence indicates that if charges are proved, penalties such as reduction in rank, removal, or dismissal are warranted. The counsel argued that the nature of allegations did not justify prolonged suspension and cited Supreme Court precedents, including Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147 and M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents, submitted that the petitioner was head of the Administration Section and had received the circular dated 08 July 2024, which expressly mandated that portraits of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar be displayed during the Constitution Day function. The State argued that despite awareness of this directive, the petitioner failed to ensure compliance, amounting to dereliction of duty. It was further submitted that prima facie evidence existed justifying suspension under Rule 10(1)(d). In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38.

Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad recorded that it was undisputed the petitioner was serving as Deputy Secretary at the relevant time. The court noted: “The Under Secretary, DPAR, had issued circular dated 08.07.2024 at Annexure-R1 intimating all the Departments that on the Constitution Day function, portraits of Mahatma Gandhiji and Dr. B.R.Ambedkar have to be placed in the function.” It was observed that the petitioner had received this circular. However, during the function on 26 November 2024, neither of the portraits was displayed. A complaint followed on 03 December 2024, notice was issued on 12 February 2025, reply was given on 04 March 2025, and suspension was ordered on 04 July 2025.

The court remarked that the determination of whether the petitioner alone was responsible for the omission required an enquiry: “The issue as to whether the petitioner is responsible for not placing the portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the Constitution Day function held on 26.11.2024 in the office of Respondent No.1 – Council, and whether the petitioner alone is responsible for the same, is a matter that requires to be decided by conducting an enquiry.”

Regarding the justification for suspension, the court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, quoting: “Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service.”

The court further recorded: “Considering the nature of the charge, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the petitioner is likely to tamper with any witness or influence the course of the departmental enquiry.” The order also noted that suspension had been issued after a significant lapse of time: “In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, and considering that the suspension order was issued after a lapse of seven months from the date of the incident, coupled with the fact that a departmental enquiry has already been initiated against the petitioner, continued suspension of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.”

On the submissions by the State, the court recorded that the petitioner had not denied receipt of the circular but her contention was that she was not the organizing authority. The court observed: “This responsibility does not rest solely on the petitioner; rather, it is equally incumbent upon the other employees present at the event to ensure compliance with the instructions outlined in the circular.” It was held that the precedent relied upon by the State was not applicable in the given facts.

Also Read: Karnataka High Court | S.112 Evidence Act — DNA Test in Partition Suit Cannot Be Ordered as Matter of Course | Compelling Paternity Test Without Imminent Need Violates Sanctity of Marriage

The court also took note of its interim order dated 08 July 2025 wherein it was clarified that interim relief would not prevent initiation of departmental proceedings. It was reiterated that the enquiry was already underway and should be completed in accordance with law.

The High Court concluded with explicit directions. The order stated: “The writ petition is allowed.” It directed that “The suspension order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is set aside.” It further instructed that “The respondents are directed to conclude the department enquiry against the petitioner, in accordance with law.” The order added a clarification: “It is made clear that any observation made in this order will not come in the way of respondents conducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Raghavendra G Gayatri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. V G Bhanuprakash, Additional Advocate General along with Sri. Vikar R, Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: Smt. K.J. Jalajakshi v. The Hon’ble Chairman, Karnataka State Legislative Council & Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:32116

Case Number: WP No. 19864 of 2025

Bench: Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad