Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 884 (KAR)

H. C. Madappa v. State of Karnataka

2010-08-11

K.GOVINDARAJULU, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This petition is filed by the applicant in Application No.4933/2010, being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2010, wherein the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter called ‘the K.A.T’) has declined to interfere with the order of suspension of the applicant – petitioner herein passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Hassan, dated 17.07.2010 and relegated the applicant to the appellate authority, after observing that no ground was made out for interfering with the order of suspension by bypassing the remedy of appeal. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Hassan, by order dated 17.07.2010, suspended the petitioner – applicant on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him in C.C.No.3100/2010 for the misconduct of issuing a false certificate while he was working as Secretary Grade-I of Village Panchayat, Kantharajapur. Being aggrieved by the said order of suspension dated 17.07.2010, the petitioner herein filed Application No.4933/2010 contending that the said order is passed in violation of the statutory Rules and mere pendency of the proceedings without any finding on merits in the criminal case, would not enable the respondents to keep him under suspension. 3. The K.A.T., by order dated 26.07.2010, declined to entertain the application of the petitioner – applicant by holding that no ground was made out by him to bypass the appellate remedy and further observed that the applicant can approach the appellate authority and work out his remedy in accordance with law and exhaust his remedy of appeal before approaching the K.A.T. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the applicant. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is directed to take notice for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of suspension of the petitioner could not have been passed as only criminal case is registered against the petitioner and no finding has been given in the criminal case and the petitioner has not been convicted and it was a fit case for interference by the K.A.T., as a special ground was made out for bypassing the remedy of appeal. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the K.A.T. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the K.A.T. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. It is clear from the order passed by the K.A.T., impugned in this writ petition dated 26.07.2010 that the K.A.T., has not gone into the merits of the case. However, having regard to the facts of the case, the K.A.T., has held that this was not a fit case for interfering with the order of suspension of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative and effective remedy of appeal and has relegated the petitioner to the appellate authority and observed that it is open to the petitioner to exhaust the remedy of appeal and thereafter, approach the K.A.T. On a perusal of the averments made in the application and the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the discretion exercised by the K.A.T., declining to interfere with the order of suspension without exhausting of the remedy of appeal by the petitioner is justified. The order of suspension of the petitioner is passed by the competent authority and whether it is mala fide or justified can be considered by the appellate authority and wherefore, relegation of the petitioner to the appellate authority is justified and we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the K.A.T. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner to work out his remedy by filing appeal and exhaust his remedy as per the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.