Karnataka High Court
K. N. Swamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 October, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36352
WP No. 21274 of 2023
C/W WP No. 21162 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 21274 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 21162 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN W.P.NO. 21274 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT RUKMINI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC REVENUE OFFICER,
WORKING AT CITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
CHALLAKERE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
2. SRI PRASANNA R V
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Digitally WORKING AT DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
signed by
PANKAJA S D C OFFICE, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
Location: ...PETITIONERS
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. G.B.MARUTHI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASASOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36352
WP No. 21274 of 2023
C/W WP No. 21162 of 2023
2. THE COMMISSIONER
D.C. OFFICE,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
3. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VV. TOWER 10TH FLOOR,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. PROJECT DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
CHITRADURGA,
D.C. OFFICE, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
5. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN PANCHAYATH MALAKALMURU,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 21.06.2023 BEARING
No.BENAKO(1) SIBBANDI/CR:36/2023-24 MADE BY THE R-2
MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO. 21162 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
K. N. SWAMY
S/O. LATE T. K. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
D.U.D.C., CHITHRADURGA,
CHITHRADURGA TOWN AND DISTRICT,
R/AT NO. 497, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
DUMB AND DEAF SCHOOL,
R.M. YARD, D.C.M. LAYOUT,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:36352
WP No. 21274 of 2023
C/W WP No. 21162 of 2023
AVARAGERE, DAVANAGERE,
KARNATAKA-577 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRAVAN MADHAV K P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE AT 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
AMBEDKAR ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. THE SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, DATED 07.08.2023, ISSUED
BY THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION (AT ANNEXURE-A), ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:36352
WP No. 21274 of 2023
C/W WP No. 21162 of 2023
ORDER
1. The petitioners in these petitions are impugning show-cause notices issued to them as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have already furnished their reply to the show cause notices. In view of the fact that the petitioners have already furnished their reply to the show-cause notices, their challenge to the said show-cause notices would be untenable.
3. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a direction has been issued, in the show-cause notices itself, to place the petitioners under suspension, and therefore, they are aggrieved.
4. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted since the authorities have decided to hear the petitioners before passing an appropriate order, the petitioners cannot really be aggrieved of the proposed action against them. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:36352 WP No. 21274 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21162 of 2023
5. It is also to be noticed here that the respondents also have the power to place the petitioners under suspension, pending enquiry and therefore, merely because a statement is made in the show-cause notices that the petitioners should be kept under suspension, that cannot be a ground to invalidate the same. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
6. It is needless to state that in the event that orders of suspension are passed against the petitioners and if they are aggrieved by the same, they are at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7