(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Praying to setting aside the order dated 04/02/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in a common order in Application No.2430/2025 and Application No.3551/2025 vide Annexure-A and etc,.)

Oral Order

S.G. Pandit, J.

1. Heard Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6.

2 The petitioner, who is working as Deputy Director of Health and Family Welfare Services, Mysuru, is before this Court questioning the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, the Tribunal') in Application Nos.2430/2025 and 3551/2025 rejecting his challenge to withdrawal of his services as Joint Director and posting him as Deputy Director of Health and Family Welfare Services, Mysuru and also questioning the order of suspension dated 01.08.2025.

3. Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Articles of Charge dated 24.07.2025, charges alleged against the petitioner relates to his working as In-charge Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare Services. Since the alleged charges relate to functioning as Joint Director and not relates to Deputy Director, he submits that the continuation of petitioner under suspension is wholly unreasonable and without any basis. Learned counsel would further submit that the Articles of Charge is dated 24.07.2025 and subsequently, the petitioner is kept under suspension on 01.08.2025. It is his submission that while keeping the petitioner under suspension, the respondents have not taken into consideration the issuance of Articles of Charge and further he submits that the respondents have not examined whether on issuance on Articles of Charge, there is any necessity to continue the petitioner under suspension. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition.

4. Per contra, Sri V. Shivareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 would submit that the Enquiry Officer is already appointed by Government Order dated 09.02.2026 and that the enquiry officer has held firstly proceedings on 05.03.2026 and that the enquiry is adjourned to 27.03.2026. Thus, he would submit that since the enquiry against the petitioner is already commenced, the order of suspension need not be interfered with. Further, learned AGA would submit that though the charge memo was issued earlier to the order of suspension dated 01.08.2025, the respondents taking note of the seriousness of the charges thought it fit to keep the petitioner under suspension. Thus he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

6. Admittedly, the order of suspension dated 01.08.2025 is subsequent to issuance of Articles of Charge dated 24.07.2025. It is open for the respondent-authorities to keep the government servant under suspension either before or subsequent to issuance of charge memo. Keeping a government servant under suspension subsequent to issuance of Articles of Charge would depend on the nature and gravity of the alleged charge against the said government servant. If a government servant is kept under suspension prior to issuance of Articles of Charge in terms of Rule 10(5) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the disciplinary authority is expected to initiate enquiry by issuance of Articles of Charge within six months.

7. In the instant case, the respondent-authorities have already appointed enquiry officer by government order dated 09.02.2026 and the enquiry officer has already commenced the enquiry on 05.03.2026.

8. It is for the authorities to take a decision as to whether the petitioner is to be continued under suspension after issuance of Articles of Charge and after commencement of enquiry. The purpose of keeping a government servant under suspension is to see that the said government servant would not tamper with the material evidence. In other words, when the Articles of Charge is issued, the presumption is that the disciplinary authority has already collected the material and evidence. Thus in the above circumstances, the respondents shall examine as to whether it would be necessary to continue the petitioner under suspension or not.

9. In that regard, the petitioner shall submit a representation within one week from today and if such representation is submitted, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate order within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and communicate the same to the petitioner.

10. With the above observation, writ petition stands disposed of.