G. Prahlad vs State of Karnataka and Others

The petitioner is working as Forest Guard in Daginakatte, Shantisagar Forest Range, Channagiri Taluk, Shimoga District. Aggrieved by the order of suspension made by the Divisional Forest Officer, Rhadravathi-2nd respondent herein, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 228 of the Constitution of India to set aside the said order of suspension dated 11-1-1980 as one made without proper application of mind and without authority of law.

On perusal of the order of suspension at Annexure-B it is clear that on the report made and pending departmental enquiry into the case, the petitioner has been kept under suspension in accordance with Sec. 10(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that such a suspension order cannot be made unless charges have been framed and an enquiry has commenced against the petitioner. In support of this contention, he has relied upon a decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1963 Pun. 87. In the said decision a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court merely explained the difference between suspension as punishment and suspension pending enquiry. While doing so they did make the distinction, that an order of suspension pending enquiry can only be made after the authority came to the conclusion that there is sufficient reasons for keeping him under suspension. I do not see how that observation of the Punjab High Court assists the petitioner. It is implicit in the impugned order at Annexure-B that the appointing authority who is also the Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion that a departmental enquiry should be instituted and pending the same the petitioner should be kept under suspension. This satisfies the requirement of Rule 10(1) of the Rules.

He has further placed reliance on the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chanamallappa Kallappa v. S.M. Megur, (1969) 1 Mys. L.J. 540. In that decision, a Division Bench of this Court was interpreting Sec. 71-A of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and were not dealing with Rule 10 of the Rules. All that was said in that decision of this Court by the Division Bench was that if an order of suspension does not state that the suspension is ordered pending enquiry, that order of suspension would itself amount to punishment by suspension. That is not the position in the instant case as the order makes it clear that the petitioner shall he paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the Rules pending completion of the enquiry. I am unable to see any infirmity in the order of suspension at Annexure-B.

Therefore, this petition is rejected without rule being issued.