Shivanand Marakeri vs Commissioner Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Development, K.G. Road, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-560009 & Ors

B M Shyam Prasad, J

The petitioner was working as a Panchayat Development Officer [PDO] with Sasalu Grama Panchayth, Doddaballapur Taluk, and the petitioner’s grievance is with the third respondent -Disciplinary Authority's order dated 09.10.2025 under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 to keep him under suspension. The petitioner's application as against this order with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] in Application No.4365/2025 is pending consideration. The petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the Tribunal has refused to grant the petitioner ex-parte stay of the order of suspension.

The Disciplinary Authority has issued the impugned order on receipt of the communication from the Chief Executive Officer [the second respondent], and the second respondent has referred to a video clip circulating on the social media to allege that the petitioner, while he was working as PDO with the Hardipura Grama Panchayat, Doddaballapur, had received certain illegal gratification for the work related to transfer of Khata for an immovable property.

Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that [i] the allegation against the petitioner is based on a video clipping seen by the Chief Executive Officer and not by the Disciplinary Authority, [ii] it is the Disciplinary Authority who had to be satisfied that there was prima facie case for keeping the petitioner under suspension and [iii] that the Disciplinary Authority could not have simply acted upon the intimation or communication by the Chief Executive Officer.

If Sri B.O. Anil Kumar emphasizes the following and contends that not even a complaint is registered against the petitioner and the decision is politically motivated, Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, submits that [i] the Tribunal is yet to decide on the petitioner's request for interim order, [ii] the application is scheduled to be listed with the Tribunal on 30.10.2025, [iii] on 30.10.2025, the Tribunal can examine the petitioner's grievance with opportunity to the respondents to place on record all the details which are prima facie examined for the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension.

At the outset, this Court must observe that the Tribunal is yet to decide on the merits of the petitioner's request for interim order. If the Disciplinary Authority is duly represented on the next date of hearing, the Tribunal must consider the petitioner's request for interim order in the light of the grounds urged and the material that could be placed on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. As such, this Court is not inclined at this stage to interfere except to request the Tribunal to decide the petitioner's request for interim order on 30.10.2025 and in any event, to dispose of the petitioner's application on merits by 14.11.2025.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.