JUDGMENT : The appellant who is the original writ petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 26th March, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by which, an interim prayer made by the petitioner seeking to stay the operation and enforcement of the order of suspension dated 27th December, 2018 (Annexure-A) was rejected. 2. The appellant was working as Secretary on the establishment of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat. Initially, he was appointed as Stenographer and on 18th May, 2004 he was promoted to the post of Under Secretary. In the year 2005, the appellant was placed under suspension. A disciplinary enquiry was held and punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the appellant. By virtue of an order passed by this Court in an earlier writ petition being writ petition No.15438 of 2009 filed by the appellant, the orders of both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were set aside and consequential directions were issued and he was reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. On 16th March 2012, the appellant was promoted to the post of Under Secretary. On 27th December 2018, an order was passed by the Under Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat by which, the appellant was ordered to be placed under suspension. The Under Secretary purportedly issued the said order by and on the Orders of the Special Board. For challenging the said order of suspension, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition No.537 of 2019 (S-RES) in which, he prayed for an interim order of stay the operation and implementation of order of his suspension. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for interim order and the main petition is still pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge. 3. On 19th August 2019, the following order was passed by this Court: “Even the learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute that the order of suspension of the appellant/petitioner could have been passed only by the Special Board consisting of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, Hon’ble the Chairman of the Karnataka Legislative Council, Hon’ble the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Hon’ble the Minister in-charge of Parliamentary Affairs and the Minister in-charge of Finance. We direct the learned AGA to produce before the Court a copy of the notice convening the meeting of the Special Board, a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Special Board, if any, and a copy of the agenda of the meeting of the Special Board in which a decision to suspend the petitioner was taken. The State will place on record the material which was placed before the alleged meeting of the Special Board”. On 13th September 2019, the following order was passed by this Court: “The learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to produce a copy of the notice convening the meeting of the Special Board, a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Special Board and a copy of the agenda of the meeting of the Special Board. Even the material which was placed before the alleged meeting of the Special Board is not placed before the Court. He seeks time on the ground that the learned Advocate General is not available today”. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the said Rules’) and pointed out the definition of Special Board, as contained in Rule-2 (viii). He pointed out that the meeting of the Special Board is required to be presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. He pointed out that by virtue of clause (ii) of Rule-9 of the said Rules, certain Rules made by the Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Service Act, 1978 will apply to those matter which are not specifically covered by the said Rules. 5. Apart from the allegations of mala fides, the learned Senior Counsel, after referring to the proceedings placed before the Court pointed out that the subject was never placed before a meeting of the Special Board chaired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the entire proceedings are only by the Hon’ble Speaker and that also not in his capacity as a member of the Special Board. He pointed out that it appears that the Hon’ble Speaker took his independent decision and thereafter, it was simply placed before the other members of the Board for approval. He pointed out that it appears that the Hon’ble Speaker took his independent decision and thereafter, it was simply placed before the other members of the Board for approval. He submitted that the order of suspension could have been passed only after convening a meeting of the Special Board presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. He pointed out from the earlier orders passed by this Court that there was no notice issued for convening the meeting of the Special Board and there is nothing placed on record to show that a meeting was indeed convened. He submitted that it appears from the proceedings signed by the Hon’ble Speaker that a report of the Committee appointed to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner was placed before the Hon’ble Speaker and after perusing the report of the Committee, the Hon’ble Speaker himself purportedly passed the order of suspension. He submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the report was placed before the Special Board. In fact the report and other materials which were considered by the Hon’ble Speaker ought to have been considered by the Special Board in its meeting. Referring to the Rule 10 (3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) CCA Rules, 1957 he submitted that without examining the material on record against the appellant, the Special Board could not have passed the order of suspension. He submitted that the impugned proceedings cannot be termed as collective decision of the Special Board. He submitted that admittedly, it is only the Special Board which could have passed the order of suspension and in the present case, there cannot be any order of the Special Board, inasmuch as, no meeting chaired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister was convened at all. He submitted that an affidavit dated 23rd October, 2019 of Dr. Rupasree K.A.S W/o Shri Ramesh filed by the Government is nothing but an afterthought and what is stated therein is not borne out from the records. He states that basic illegality committed cannot be cured by filing such an affidavit. He submitted that all the aforesaid aspects have been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the order of suspension of the appellant cannot be passed in a casual or in a routine manner. 6. He states that basic illegality committed cannot be cured by filing such an affidavit. He submitted that all the aforesaid aspects have been completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the order of suspension of the appellant cannot be passed in a casual or in a routine manner. 6. The learned Advocate General invited our attention to the proceedings of the Special Board and pointed out that it is not necessary to hold a formal meeting of the Special Board. He pointed out that the Finance Department had appointed a Committee to investigate into the expenditure incurred for Belgavi Session of the Legislative Assembly during the year 2016 and 2017. The proceedings clearly show that the Hon’ble Speaker has meticulously gone through the report of the Committee. He pointed out that the findings of the Committee constituted by the Finance Department under twenty two different heads have been reproduced by the Hon’ble Speaker. He submitted that the detailed proceedings were drawn by the Hon’ble Speaker and the same was placed before the Hon’ble Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs and the Hon’ble Chief Minister. He pointed out that in the affidavit of Dr. Roopashree it is clearly stated that the said officer had personally taken the file to the chambers of the Hon’ble Minister of Parliamentary Affairs on 20th December 2018 and the said file was taken by the officer to the chambers of the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 26th December 2018. He submitted that the proceedings drawn by the Hon’ble Speaker are detailed and elaborate. After going through the said proceedings, the Hon’ble Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and the Hon’ble Chief Minister have concurred with the views expressed by the Hon’ble Speaker. He submitted that since the proceedings drawn by the Speaker were detailed proceedings based on the findings of the Committee, there cannot be non-application of mind by the Hon’ble Chairman and other members of the Special Board. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for in this appeal with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the proceedings drawn by the Hon’ble Speaker and pointed out that the Hon’ble Speaker himself purportedly passed the order of suspension and it is not merely a recommendation to the other members of the Special Board. 8. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the proceedings drawn by the Hon’ble Speaker and pointed out that the Hon’ble Speaker himself purportedly passed the order of suspension and it is not merely a recommendation to the other members of the Special Board. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions. There is no dispute that it is only the Special Board chaired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister has a power to pass an order of suspension of the appellant. The definition of Special Board under Rule-2 of the said Rules, no doubt, provides that the meeting of the Special Board has to be chaired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The purpose of convening the meeting of the Special Board is to ensure that there is a meeting of minds of the members of the Board on the subjects before the Special Board. Based on the materials, views of the members can be exchanged in such a meeting. In this case, we are dealing with the decision taken by the three Constitutional functionaries such as the Hon’ble Speaker, the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Hon’ble Minister for Parliamentary affairs. We have carefully perused the English translation of the proceedings drawn by the Hon’ble Speaker. It runs into twenty two pages. It appears from the proceedings that the Hon’ble Speaker had carefully gone through the report and findings of the Committee appointed by the Finance Department of the State Government which was headed by the Additional Director of the State Accounts department. The conclusions or the findings of the Committee have been reproduced under twenty two different heads. Several financial irregularities have been noted by the Hon’ble Speaker, who, prima facie, found that the appellant, without following the financial propriety, for the expenses incurred for the Belagavi session held during the year 2016 and 2017 submitted a proposal to the Hon’ble Speaker for approval. The appellant also kept the Hon’ble Speaker in dark and obtained approval. It is true that in the proceedings, the Hon’ble Speaker mentioned that he has suspended the appellant. The last paragraph of the said proceedings is relevant. The English translation of the last paragraph of the proceedings reads thus: “Being head of the Department without realizing his responsibilities, misguided the Hon’ble Speaker and got approved the proposals, which amounts to gross dereliction of duty thereby he has violated the Conduct Rules. The last paragraph of the said proceedings is relevant. The English translation of the last paragraph of the proceedings reads thus: “Being head of the Department without realizing his responsibilities, misguided the Hon’ble Speaker and got approved the proposals, which amounts to gross dereliction of duty thereby he has violated the Conduct Rules. In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8 and 9 (0) of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat C & R rules and as per Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rule 1957, I hereby order to keep Sri S. Murthy, Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, under suspension from the Service, pending departmental enquiry, with immediate effect. The accused officer has to obtain prior permission of the Competent Authority before leaving the Head quarters”. Thereafter, the file was placed before the Hon’ble Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs and the Hon’ble Chief Minister. If the Hon’ble Speaker himself intended to pass an order of suspension, there was no reason for him to place the file before the members of the Special Board. 9. It is not possible for this Court to accept that the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Hon’ble Minister for Parliamentary Affairs simply signed on the proceedings without application of mind. There is no reason to disbelieve that both of them must have gone through the entire proceedings in which the gist of finding recorded by the Committee appointed by the finance department has been incorporated. The Hon’ble Speaker has recorded prima facie findings against the appellant based on the findings of the Committee. Thus, the Hon’ble Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and the Hon’ble Chief Minister concurred with the views expressed by the Hon’ble Speaker and prima facie findings recorded by the Hon’ble Speaker. After the proceedings were signed by the members, an Order was passed written below the signatures to the effect that as per the order of the Special Board, suspension order be issued on 27th December 2018. 10. As far as the law relating to the Committee meetings is concerned, there is nothing unusual or illegal about a Committee passing a circular resolution after the materials are circulated to the Committee members. Such a decision taken by the Committee by adopting mode of circulation cannot become per se illegal. 10. As far as the law relating to the Committee meetings is concerned, there is nothing unusual or illegal about a Committee passing a circular resolution after the materials are circulated to the Committee members. Such a decision taken by the Committee by adopting mode of circulation cannot become per se illegal. Therefore, it is impossible for this Court to accept that the decision making process adopted by the Special Board was illegal and we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the decision to suspend the appellant was taken by the Special Board. The prima facie findings recorded in the proceedings is based on the report of the fact finding Committee constituted by the Finance department of the Government. As observed by the learned Single Judge, when a power is vested with the authority, unless the exercise of such power is shown to be demonstrably arbitrary, a writ Court cannot interfere with such a prima facie finding. 11. The scope of interference by this Court against an order refusing to grant discretionary and equitable relief of interim order is limited, as distinguished from an appeal against a final judgment. It is settled law that unless the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge is shown to have been exercised in perverse manner or unless the interim order is shown to have been illegal, the appellate Court will be slow to interfere with such a discretionary order. We concur with the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge that a prima facie case was not made out by the appellant for grant of an interim order. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for with the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. However the appellant cannot be kept under suspension for an unreasonably long time. Hence, liberty will have to be granted to the appellant to file a fresh petition challenging the order of suspension if the disciplinary inquiry is not commenced within a reasonable time. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) We hold that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge; (ii) However, while we decline to interfere with the impugned order, we must make a note here that the appellant cannot be kept under suspension for a long period without initiating departmental/disciplinary inquiry proceedings. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) We hold that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge; (ii) However, while we decline to interfere with the impugned order, we must make a note here that the appellant cannot be kept under suspension for a long period without initiating departmental/disciplinary inquiry proceedings. Therefore, on the failure on the part of the respondents-Authorities to initiate departmental enquiry within a reasonable time and/or its failure to conclude the enquiry within a reasonable time, it will be always open for the appellant to file a fresh petition seeking to quash the order of suspension; (iii) We make it clear that the observations made in this order and the findings recorded are only for the purposes of examining the existence of a prima facie case. The learned Single Judge shall dispose of the writ petition without being influenced by the said prima facie findings; (iv) Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to the costs.