Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Suspension Of Legislative Council Deputy Secretary Over Ambedkar Portrait Omission

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging a suspension order issued after a complaint was lodged regarding the absence of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s portrait during the Constitution Day function organised at the Legislative Council premises.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice H. T. Narendra Prasad, while delivering the judgment, remarked that “…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. Furthermore, having regard to the nature of the charge, there appears to be no likelihood of the petitioner tampering with any records.”

Advocate Raghavendra G. Gayatri appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General V. G. Bhanuprakash represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner joined the Legislative Council as a stenographer in 1997 and rose through promotions to the post of Deputy Secretary in August 2023. On 26 November 2024, a Constitution Day function was held in the Council office. A circular issued earlier by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) had mandated that portraits of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar be placed during the function. However, the portraits were not displayed.

On 3 December 2024, employees of the Council lodged a complaint regarding the omission. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 12 February 2025, to which she replied on 4 March 2025. She denied intentional omission, stating that she was neither the organiser nor the person in charge of the function, and argued that other officers were equally responsible. Despite this, on 4 July 2025, the Secretary of the Council suspended her under Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the suspension was arbitrary, delayed, and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Court’s Observations

The Bench considered whether suspension was warranted in light of the allegations. It referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India (2013), which held that suspension should not be exercised arbitrarily and is justified only where a strong prima facie case exists involving serious misconduct likely to result in major penalties such as dismissal or reduction in rank.

The Court observed that the allegation against the petitioner was limited to not ensuring placement of the portraits during the function, a charge not grave enough to suggest that she could tamper with evidence or obstruct the enquiry. It further noted that the suspension order was passed seven months after the incident and four months after the petitioner’s reply, weakening the justification for immediate suspension.

The Court emphasised that responsibility for the omission did not rest solely on the petitioner, as several other officers were also involved in the event. The contention of the State that the mere existence of a prima facie case was sufficient for suspension was rejected.

The Bench concluded that with a departmental enquiry already initiated, continuing the suspension would serve no useful purpose.

Conclusion

Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the suspension order dated 4 July 2025. It directed the respondents to conclude the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the law, clarifying that its observations would not affect the enquiry’s outcome.

Cause Title: K. J. Jalajakshi v. The Hon’ble Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:32116)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Raghavendra G. Gayatri

Respondents: Additional Advocate General V. G. Bhanuprakash, Advocate Vikar R.

Click here to read/download Judgment