Sri Basavaraju M vs The Commissioner on 16 February, 2017
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend
that the order placing them under suspension, more
particularly the 1st petitioner, is without the authority of law
as it is passed by an officer, who is neither the Appointing
3
nor the Disciplinary Authority. She would draw the attention
of this Court to Schedule II of the Karnataka City Corporation
Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules 1991 and submits
that the 1st petitioner, who is a Group-"A" Officer, can be
placed under suspension only by the State Government and
the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
[Administration], BBMP., is without authority of law and
beyond his competence. She would further rely on the ruling
of this Court reported in ILR 2001 Kar. 3092
[N.Munivenkatappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another] and
the Order of this Court passed in W.P. No.14817/2008,
disposed of on 08.12.2008. She would contend that the
order passed by the 2nd respondent is without competence
and requires to be interfered with.