logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 1054 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 25006 Of 2026 (S-KSAT)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Parties : Veerendra Patil Versus The State Of Karnataka Department Of Finance (Commercial Tax - 2 And Coordination), Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Bangalore & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: K. Satish, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, V. Shiva Reddy, AGA.
Date of Judgment : 24-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 45473,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records from the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in respect of the impugned order dated 14/07/2026 passed in Application No.1791/2026 (Annexure-A) and etc.,)

Oral Order

R. Devdas, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court under similar circumstances noticed that Rule 10(5)(b) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 prescribes that even after amendment, the period of suspension can continue only for six months and on the expiry of the said date, the suspension is deemed to have been rescinded at the hands of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for similar order.

2. We have perused the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Sri.Loknath R. vs. The State of Karnataka and another in W.P.No.22677/2024 dated 12.12.2024 wherein, the petitioner therein had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of suspension. Although the application was rejected by the Tribunal, nevertheless before this Court, it was contented that in terms of Rule 10 (5)(b) of the Rules, 1957, the order of suspension is deemed to have been rescinded. The Co-ordinate Bench took note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291 and also noticed that an amendment was brought to the Rules extending the minimum period of suspension from three months to six months. However, even after the expiry of the period of six months, the respondent authorities did not pass any order in terms of the provision.

3. In the present case too, the petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the order of suspension dated 12.02.2026 and the application was rejected on 14.07.2026, at the hands of the Tribunal. However, subsequent to the rejection of the application at the hands of the Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed and in this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of the Rule which permits deemed revocation of the order of suspension.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order of suspension is dated 12.02.2026, the period of six months came to an end on 12.08.2026. Further, in terms of the requirement of the Rule, the petitioner has also given a representation on 13.08.2026 seeking postings at the hands of the respondents.

5. Consequently, this petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioner's suspension dated 12.02.2026 came to an end on the evening of 12.08.2026; a direction issues to the respondents to give him posting immediately. Any dispute relating to what should happen to the suspension period, is kept open to workout elsewhere in accordance with law.
 
  CDJLawJournal