Pendency Of Criminal Proceeding Can't Be Invoked To Indefinitely Prolong Suspension In Absence Of Departmental Enquiry: Karnataka High Court

The Court also 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.

The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Board to reinstate the petitioner and granted him all consequential service benefits, emphasizing that the "statutory clock" begins the moment an employee is suspended and cannot be ignored by the Competent Authority.

​The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "The justification sought to be advanced in the affidavit, that the pendency of criminal case warrants continuance of suspension, cannot be sustained. The order of suspension was passed in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. Mere pendency of a criminal proceeding cannot be invoked to indefinitely prolong suspension in the absence of any departmental enquiry."

Advocate Shreevatsa Hegde appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Basavaraj V.Sabarad appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner joined the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (the ‘Board’) as a Stenographer and rose to the rank of Senior Assistant. Following a transfer to Davangere, the Petitioner suffered a cardiac arrest while reporting for duty and underwent surgery.

The Board placed the Petitioner under suspension for alleged financial irregularities involving land compensation. Despite the passage of several months, no departmental charge sheet was issued, prompting the Petitioner to seek revocation of his suspension under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Meanwhile, the CID registered an FIR and filed a criminal charge sheet against him in the local Court.

The Petitioner contended that his suspension was deemed as revoked due to the Board's inaction and the delayed payment of subsistence allowance. After years of continued suspension, he approached this Court for relief. It was only after the filing of this petition that the Board finally issued a departmental charge sheet concerning specific financial losses caused to the Government.

Contention of the Parties

The Petitioner vehemently contended that the continued suspension violated Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. It was argued that the Board failed to initiate a departmental enquiry or issue a charge sheet for over two years, rendering the suspension illegal. It was further submitted that the allegations in the eventual charge sheet remained vague and that the Petitioner lacked the competency to authorize the compensation in question.

It was further asserted that the grounds for the current disciplinary proceedings differed from the original reasons for suspension and that essential documents were withheld. The Petitioner maintained that the Board issued the charge sheet only as an afterthought following the Court’s notice. Relying on various precedents from the Apex Court and High Court, counsel sought the immediate revocation of the suspension order.

Per contra, the Board refuted the Petitioner's contentions, arguing that the amended Rules only mandated revocation if no enquiry was commenced. It was submitted that both a departmental enquiry and a CID criminal charge sheet were now active. The Board contended that the Petitioner’s actions constituted gross misconduct resulting in significant financial loss.

The Board further clarified that the suspension was authorized by the Competent Authority and that the Petitioner was a regular employee, not a deputationist. It was argued that reinstatement would pose a high risk of the Petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses in the ongoing investigations. On these grounds, the Board prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the amendment to Rule 10(5) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules introduced a significant deeming clause. This provision mandates that if a departmental enquiry is not initiated (via issuance of a charge sheet) or a criminal charge sheet is not filed within six months of the suspension, the Competent Authority must expressly decide whether to extend the suspension. In the absence of such an order, the suspension stands automatically revoked by operation of law. The Court emphasized that suspension beyond six months cannot be prolonged by "inertia" and requires an active, reasoned decision.

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s six-month period culminated in June 2023. Despite the Petitioner’s representation for revocation and his grievance regarding the delayed subsistence allowance, the Board remained inactive for nearly two years. The Court clarified that a departmental enquiry commences only upon the issuance of a charge sheet, not a mere suspension order or show-cause notice. Consequently, by the time the Petitioner approached this Court, his suspension had already "outlived its legitimacy."

The Court criticized the Board’s conduct as displaying a "troubling disregard for the rule of law," noting that the Board only issued a charge sheet in April 2025 as a reactive measure after the Court intervened.

“By virtue of the substituted Rule 10(5)(b), the statutory clock began to run. 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 said.

The Court rejected the Board's justification that the pendency of a criminal case warranted continued suspension. Following the reasoning of the Madras High Court in DGP v. D. Jayakumar, the Court held that suspension cannot be extended endlessly solely based on a criminal trial when no departmental progress has been made.

The Court 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.”

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the Petitioner’s suspension must be revoked. It held that the Petitioner is entitled to all consequential service benefits effective from the date the six-month period of suspension expired.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. A Mandamus was issued to the Board to provide a posting to the Petitioner, as his suspension is deemed revoked by law.

The Petitioner was granted all consequential benefits arising from the date his six-month suspension period concluded.

Cause Title: Shankar Yamanappa Talawar v. The Chief Executive Officer And Executive Member and Ors. [Writ Petition No.101210 Of 2025 (S-Res)]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Shreevatsa Hegde

Respondents: Senior Advocate Basavaraj V. Sabarad and Advocate Shashank S Hegde

Click here to read/download the Order