Subsistence Allowance Mandatory During Suspension; Denial Amounts To Economic & Professional Excommunication: Karnataka High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order of suspension issued by the State, based on the petitioner’s custody in a corruption-related case.

A single judge Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while deciding the matter, remarked: “Suspension may be for varied reasons under the Rules. Whether it is pending departmental enquiry or deeming fiction, suspension is suspension. Therefore, grant of subsistence allowance is mandatory in any circumstance of suspension. He cannot be denied his statutory subsistence allowance. To deprive the petitioner of his livelihood, while branding him with a stigma, without even observing the statutory safeguards, is nothing short of economic and professional excommunication.”

Advocate Sunil S. Desai appeared for the petitioner, while Kirtilata R. Patil, HCGP and Advocate Vishwanath Badiger represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner, employed since 1985 and serving as a Revenue Officer in a Municipal Council, was implicated in a complaint alleging illegal gratification. A trap was laid against another officer, but the petitioner was also taken into custody and remained there for 96 hours before being released on bail.

Despite the provision under Rule 10(2)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, which deems an employee under suspension if detained for more than 48 hours, the suspension order was issued after four months, based on a communication from the Lokayukta. The petitioner argued that the order lacked application of mind, violated Rule 10(3), and that he was not paid a subsistence allowance despite being suspended.

The State argued that suspension was automatic upon custody exceeding 48 hours, while admitting that subsistence allowance could be directed by the Court. The municipal authority supported the State’s stand.

Court’s Observation

The Karnataka High Court examined Rule 10 of the CCA Rules and held that Rule 10(3) mandates the competent authority to independently examine material and record satisfaction of prima facie evidence before suspending an employee. Mere reliance on the Lokayukta’s dictate, without application of mind, the Court observed, renders the suspension illegal.

The Court also referred to the State’s own circular dated 13.01.2015, clarifying that suspension cannot be imposed automatically or indefinitely merely because the employee was in custody for 48 hours, and that the authority must apply its mind in every case.

Significantly, the Court held that a subsistence allowance is a statutory right and its denial is unconstitutional and oppressive. While making these observations, the Bench remarked: “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. For dismissal at least is final, while suspension keeps the sword hanging endlessly over the head of the employee, robbing his peace, dignity and sustenance.”

Finding that the suspension was imposed mechanically, four months late, and solely on the dictate of Lokayukta without compliance with Rule 10(3), the Court held the order arbitrary and illegal.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The High Court quashed the suspension order and held that the petitioner could not be consigned to indefinite suspension on vague grounds. The State was given liberty to post the petitioner to any alternative position suitable to administrative requirements.

Cause Title: Basavaraj S/o Pundalikappa v. The State of Karnataka & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:14122)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Sunil S. Desai

Respondents: Advocate Kirtilata R. Patil, HCGP, with Advocate Vishwanath Badiger

Click here to read/download Judgment