Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 491 (KAR)

C. ANDANI v. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

2000-07-14

R.GURURAJAN

body2000
R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER in this petition is an official of the Bangalore mahanagara palike and is working as revenue officer in the corporation. On 25-3-2000 the officials of lokayukta effected search of the office and the residence of the petitioner and drew a mahajar in the matter. Later he received a notice on 7-4-2000 seeking for particulars regarding the properties vide annexure-a, issued by the police inspector, lokayukta. Petitioner replied to the said notice as per annexure-b, dated 22-4-2000. lokayukta on the basis of their investigation has written a letter to mahanagara palike to suspend the petitioner. Petitioner has now received a suspension order dated 4-7-2000, Annexure-C. Petitioner challenges this order in this petition. ( 2 ) PETITIONER contends that the impugned order of suspension is a clear case of non-application of mind. There is no satisfaction on the part of the commissioner with regard to suspension of the petitioner. It is contended that no proceedings either by way of charge sheet or departmental enquiry are pending or contemplated against the petitioner. Under these circumstances petitioner wants the suspension order to be struck down by this court in this petition. ( 3 ) NOTICE was ordered to respondents and the respondents have entered appearance. ( 4 ) MATTER is heard for final disposal. ( 5 ) MR. Suresh s. Joshi, learned counsel contends that a look at the impugned order would show that there is no satisfaction on the part of the authority. He refers to Rule 10 to contend that the present suspension is contrary to Rule 10. He also referred to various judgments in support of his case. ( 6 ) PER contra Sri ashok harnahalli, learned counsel contends that the commissioner after satisfaction has issued the present order. He has also placed the original file for the perusal of the court. ( 7 ) IT is an admitted fact that the lokayukta had issued notice on 7-4-2000 and has obtained the reply of the petitioner. Thereafter lokayukta has issued a letter to the commissioner stating that a prima facie case is made out regarding acquisition of property disproportionate to the known source of income and then lokayukta has taken up the investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter lokayukta has issued a letter to the commissioner stating that a prima facie case is made out regarding acquisition of property disproportionate to the known source of income and then lokayukta has taken up the investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. From the original file made available to the court it is seen that the deputy commissioner, administration, made a detailed note in the original file and has also sought for a decision with regard to suspending of the petitioner in view of the pending investigation by the police. The commissioner as i see from the said note dated 30-6-2000 has endorsed it by saying "agreed" and signed the same on 3-7-2000. It is thereafter the deputy commissioner has communicated the order of the commissioner with regard to the suspension of the petitioner from service vide order at Annexure-C. In the light of the facts narrated above and in the light of the material available in the original record and the endorsement of suspension by the commissioner i do not think that the petitioner is right in his submission that there is no satisfaction at all by the commissioner as contended by the petitioner. I am fully satisfied about the satisfaction on the part of the commissioner in the matter. When the commissioner has "agreed" for the proposal of suspension after a detailed note, it can definitely be said that he accepted the suggestion of suspension after being satisfied himself about the need of suspension of the petitioner in view of the pending investigation by the lokayukta police. ( 8 ) THE Karnataka civil services rules, 1957 provide for suspension under Rule 10 of the rules. The said Rule came up for consideration before this court in shivashankar v state of Karnataka and others. similar contention was raised by the petitioner in that case. This court after noticing judgment of Supreme Court in p. r. nayak v union of india, and a judgment in k. s. muni reddy v deputy director of public instruction, kolar and others, has ruled as under:"5. similar contention was raised by the petitioner in that case. This court after noticing judgment of Supreme Court in p. r. nayak v union of india, and a judgment in k. s. muni reddy v deputy director of public instruction, kolar and others, has ruled as under:"5. Having regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner under IPC for which he is standing trial in the court of the judicial magistrate first class, ramanagaram, about which there is no dispute, i do not think under Rule 10 (l) (b) of the cca rules any satisfaction is required to be recorded by the authority making the suspension order because the power conferred is to be exercised when the fact is established which occasions exercise of that power. If the fact is not established then the question of exercising that power does not arise. Rule 10 (1) (b) of the rules reads as follows:"10 (L) (B ). . . . Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offences is under investigation or trial it is seen that sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the cca rules provides for the power being exercised when there is a case pending trial or when the trial is in progress. There may be cases in which even at the stage of investigation of a crime, the officer concerned may be kept under suspension. as is seen from the order of suspension extracted above the information supplied by the superintendent of police, Bangalore district, merely informed the directorate about the fact of the charges against the petitioner and the trial that had commenced in the court of the judicial magistrate, first class at ramanagaram. The fact that he also requested for the suspension of the petitioner who was one of the accused at the trial does not necessarily lead me to draw the conclusion that the director-2nd respondent herein did not feel the need for the suspension imposed in paragraph 1 of the order. he has no more than recorded the information received by him and the fact of the request made. The very fact that he has proceeded to pass the order of suspension is ample proof that he was satisfied that the circumstances warranted it. from that it cannot be said that there has been no application of mind. he has no more than recorded the information received by him and the fact of the request made. The very fact that he has proceeded to pass the order of suspension is ample proof that he was satisfied that the circumstances warranted it. from that it cannot be said that there has been no application of mind. It is an administrative order of suspension made under Rule 10 (l) (a) or (b) of the cca rules and is not an order of punishment. It is purely an administrative order made in exercise of administrative power. There may be cases, that even an administrative order must necessarily be after recording satisfaction of the need to make that administrative Order, but one under Rule 10 (l) (a) or 10 (l) (b) of the cca rules need not be construed as such an administrative order. A mere contemplation of an enquiry or pendency of criminal trial will be sufficient to exercise the power without actually recording judicial or quasi-judicial satisfaction for making the order" ". ( 9 ) IN the light of this judgment of this court it cannot be said on the facts of the case placed before this court that there is no satisfaction as contended by the petitioner. In fact in the very said judgment this court has noticed as under:"that the very fact that the material was placed before him with a request is enough indication of his application of mind. I have already stated that when he has proceeded to pass the suspension Order, the officer concerned has recorded his satisfaction also. Every order of suspension if it is written like a judicial Order, administration becomes almost impossible". ( 10 ) IN the circumstances the second contention of non-application of mind by the commissioner on the facts of this case is not available to the petitioner in view of the note and the agreement by the commissioner as available in the original file. ( 11 ) MR. Joshi however referred to 3 judgments reported in a. p, jai narain rai v senior superintendent of police, allahabad, and k. Sukhender reddy v state of Andhra Pradesh and m. Sridevi v syndicate bank, manipal. I have carefully gone through these judgments and none of these judgments are applicable to the facts of the case. ( 11 ) MR. Joshi however referred to 3 judgments reported in a. p, jai narain rai v senior superintendent of police, allahabad, and k. Sukhender reddy v state of Andhra Pradesh and m. Sridevi v syndicate bank, manipal. I have carefully gone through these judgments and none of these judgments are applicable to the facts of the case. In m. sridevi's case, supra, this court was concerned with regard to interpretation of clause 19 (2) providing for suspension pending "such enquiry". while considering this clause this court has ruled that the said suspension is not in accordance with bipartite settlement between the petitioner and the bank. Similarly in a. p. jai narain rai's case, supra, the court was concerned with regard to suspension. In that case the court found that no material as such was provided to show on what ground proceedings were contemplated by the respondents. In the case on hand the order as well as the note clearly indicate the reason for suspension of the petitioner by the corporation. Therefore, the judgment of the Allahabad high court (ii case) on the facts of this case is not available to the petitioner. The 3rd judgment relied upon by the petitioner's counsel is k. Sukhender reddy's case, supra. In the said case the facts reveal that the appellant (a member of Indian administrative services) was placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings proposed to be initiated against him. A subsequent order was passed stating that no disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. He was placed under suspension in view of the registration of criminal case. no fir as such was also filed. In those given set of circumstances the Supreme Court set aside the order of suspension on the material available in that case. The said case is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the circumstances none of the judgments are applicable to the facts of this case. ( 12 ) AFTER completion of the arguments one more judgment was placed before the court by the petitioner's counsel for my consideration. I have gone through the judgment in syed ismail qadri v syed abdul nabi. that was a case no doubt of application of mind as i see from the facts narrated in the said judgment. ( 12 ) AFTER completion of the arguments one more judgment was placed before the court by the petitioner's counsel for my consideration. I have gone through the judgment in syed ismail qadri v syed abdul nabi. that was a case no doubt of application of mind as i see from the facts narrated in the said judgment. In that case note was put up by sheristedar:" "the land in question may be taken in court custody and crop auctioned until the case is disposed of". Sdm on the very date passed the following order "yes. Order be issued" ". ( 13 ) IT was in these circumstances this court ruled that there is no proper application of mind. In the case on hand a detailed note has been put up by the deputy commissioner and the material facts were considered and was agreed to by the commissioner as i see from the file. It was not one line note as in the judgment. Therefore this judgment is also of no assistance to the petitioner. ( 14 ) AFTER taking into consideration of all aspects of the matter I am of the view that the corporation is fully justified in placing the petitioner under suspension from its services. Admittedly the petitioner is working in revenue department of the corporation and there is serious allegation of his having income disproportionate to his known source of income. If such officials are not suspended on such facts, purity of administration would suffer. Looking from any angle no case is made out by the petitioner requiring my interference. ( 15 ) WRIT petition is rejected. ( 16 ) MR. Ashok harnhalli, learned counsel for the respondent is permitted to file his vakalath within 4 weeks. The interim order granted by me stands vacated. --- *** --- .