“Cannot Act Treat Employees As Chattels”: Karnataka High Court Pulls Up KIADB For Extending Suspension Beyond Six Months Without Chargesheet
The Bench noted that the statutory mandate under Rule 10(5)(b) overrides administrative inertia; and declared the suspension ‘deemed revoked’.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench
The Karnataka High Court while issuing a mandamus directing the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) to provide the petitioner with a posting, has held that it cannot treat employees as "chattels" by indefinitely extending suspension without issuing a charge sheet, affirming that such conduct violates the service rules.
Interpreting the amended Rule 10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the Court declared the suspension “deemed revoked” from the date of expiry of the initial six-month period, and clarified that statutory safeguards against prolonged suspension are not mere formalities but binding legal mandates.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “Such conduct, on the part of the Board, displays a troubling disregard to the rule of law. The Board appears to have treated the statutory safeguards as mere formalities, over looking the binding nature of Rule 10(5)(b), which unequivocally declares that suspension stands revoked upon lapse of 6 months, in the absence of timely action…”.
“…The Competent Authority, cannot wield its powers arbitrarily, as though employees were chattels or the institution, a personal fiefdom. The Board is bound by the discipline of law. The interpretation accorded to Rule 10(5)(b) by the Division Benches, must, therefore, operate to the benefit of the petitioner”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate Shreevatsa Hegde appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Basavaraj V. Sabarad, appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner, Shankar Yamanappa Talawar, a Senior Assistant with KIADB, was placed under suspension on December 19, 2022, following allegations of financial irregularities. Despite the passage of over two years, the Board failed to issue a charge sheet or commence a departmental inquiry, even after the petitioner submitted a representation for revocation in June 2023.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to revoke the suspension facing continued inaction. Only after the Court sought an explanation for the 30-month delay did the Board belatedly issue a charge sheet in April 2025. The Board defended the delay by citing the pendency of a CID investigation and the need for criminal prosecution sanction.
The Court observed that Rule 10(5)(b) was amended specifically to incorporate a "deeming clause" that limits suspension to six months in the absence of a charge sheet. The Bench noted that the Board displayed a "troubling disregard" for this rule, treating it as a formality rather than a binding obligation.
“On a harmonious synthesis of the pronouncements of the Apex Court, the Division Benches of this Court and the coordinate Bench, an inescapable conclusion emerges that the petitioner’s suspension cannot be permitted to subsist any longer, and must necessarily be revoked. The chronology of events only reinforces the said conclusion. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 19-12-2022, well after the amendment dated 29-10-2020 had come into force. By virtue of the 34 substituted Rule 10(5)(b), the statutory clock began to run…”, the Bench noted.
“…Upon the expiry of the period of 6 months and in the absence of any departmental enquiry initiated by issuance of a charge sheet, the suspension stood automatically revoked by operation of law. Yet, in the stark disregard to the statutory mandate, no enquiry was commenced against the petitioner, for nearly 3 years. It was only pursuant to the order passed by this Court quoted supra, charge sheet comes to be issued in April 2025, thereafter an order is passed seeking to continue the suspension until 28-10-2025 ostensibly to justify the prolonged inaction in initiating a departmental enquiry or reinstating the petitioner into service upon deemed revocation”, the Bench further noted.
The Court allowing the writ petition, declared the suspension deemed revoked from the date of expiry of the initial six-month period and ordered that the petitioner be granted all consequential service benefits from that date forward.
Cause Title: Shankar Yamanappa Talawar v. The Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member, KIADB & Others Writ Petition No.101210 Of 2025 (S-Res)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Shreevatsa Hegde, Advocate.
Respondents: Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Senior Advocate, Shashank S. Hegde, Advocate.