Sri. Shivanand Satihal v. The State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40667-DB( WP(No.(21899(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010487442026( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( RDDATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S.G.PANDIT(

AND((

THE(HON'BLE(DR.(JUSTICE(K.MANMADHA(RAO(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(21899(OF(2026((S-KSAT)(

BETWEEN:((

( SRI.,SHIVANAND,SATIHAL, S/O.,AYYAPPA,,

AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS,, WORKING,AS,PANCHAYATH,DEVELOPMENT,OFFICER,, PONNASAMUDRA,GRAMA,PANCHAYATH,,,

PAVAGADA,TALUK,,TUMKUR,DISTRICT,-,561,402,, NOW,UNDER,AN,ORDER,OF,SUSPENSION,,, RESIDING,AT,PRASADA,LAYOUT,,,

MALLESHAPPA,HOUSE,,JYOTHI,NAGAR,,, BEHIND,PRESIDENCY,SCHOOL,,SIRA,,, TUMKUR,DISTRICT,-,572,137.,

PH.NO.9980676705, EMAIL,ID:SHIVANANDASATIHAL4@GMAIL.COM, Digitallytisigned …PETITIONER, by0G (BY,SRI.,SATISH,K.,,ADVOCATE), SHREERAKSHA Location:0HIGH , COURT0OF AND:(KARNATAKA (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,, DEPARTMENT,OF,RURAL,DEVELOPMENT,AND, PANCHAYATH,RAJ,,M.,S.,BUILDING,,, BANGALORE,-,560,001., ,

2., THE,COMMISSIONER,, KARNATAKA,PANCHAYATH,RAJ,COMMISSIONERATE,, K.,G.,ROAD,,BANGALORE,–,560,009., , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40667-DB( WP(No.(21899(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010487442026( (

3., THE,CHIEF,EXECUTIVE,OFFICER,, ZILLA,PANCHAYATH,,TUMKUR,DISTRICT,,, WARD,NO.,18,,TUMKUR,-,572,101., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.V,SHIVA,REDDY.,,AGA,FOR,R1,&,R2;, ,,,,,,SRI.A,NAGARAJAPPA.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, I), CALL, FOR, RECORDS, FROM, THE, HON'BLE, KARNATAKA, STATE, ADMINISTRATIVE,TRIBUNAL,,BENGALURU,IN,RESPECT,OF,THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 13.07.2026, PASSED, IN, APPLICATION, No., 2120/2026, (ANNEXURE-A), AND, II), SET, ASIDE,THE,IMPUGNED,ORDER,DATED,13.07.2026,PASSED,BY, THE,HON'BLE,KARNATAKA,STATE,ADMINISTRATIVE,TRIBUNAL,, BENGALURU, IN, APPLICATION, No., 2120/2026, (ANNEXURE-A), AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW, THE, SAID, APPLICATION, No., 2120/2026,AS,SOUGHT,FOR,BY,THE,PETITIONER,BEFORE,THE, HONBLE, TRIBUNAL, (ANNEXURE-B),, IN, THE, INTEREST, OF, JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY,AND,ETC.,, ,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S.G.PANDIT, and,, HON'BLE,DR.,JUSTICE,K.MANMADHA,RAO, , ORAL(ORDER( ( (PER:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S.G.PANDIT)( , Petitioner,, an, unsuccessful, applicant, before, the, Tribunal, is, before, this, Court, questioning, the, impugned, order, dated, 13.07.2026, passed, in, Application,

No.2120/2026 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ('Tribunal', for short).

¶2Heard Sri.Satish K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Zilla Panchayath as well as learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the entire writ petition papers on record.

¶3Sri.Sathish K., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 26.03.2026 alleging certain irregularities and diversion of fund while he was working as in-charge Panchayath Development Officer of Kotadagudda Grama Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Panchayath Development Officer at Ponnasamudra Grama Panchayath and when the Panchayath Development Officer Smt.Bhavya A., working at Kotagudda Grama Panchayat went on maternity leave between

31.10.2023 to

29.04.2024, the petitioner was posted as in-charge

Panchayath Development Officer. It is submitted that the incident alleged to have taken place when the petitioner was in-charge of Kotagudda Grama Panchayath and the impugned suspension order dated 26.03.2026 related to the alleged incidents when he was in-charge. It is submitted that articles of charge in that aspect was also issued prior to the order of suspension on 06.03.2026 itself.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to examine as to whether, under the facts and circumstances, suspension was warranted as already charge memo was issued and there was no occasion for the petitioner to tamper with the witness or material evidence. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is working in a different Grama Panchayath. As such, the situation had not warranted to keep the petitioner under suspension. It is contended that the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the order of suspension cannot be said to be arbitrary.

¶5Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 as well as Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the charges against the petitioner are very serious and that too, it is financial irregularity. Learned counsel would submit that since the charges alleged against the petitioner are very serious, the petitioner is kept under suspension pending departmental proceedings. Thus, they would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶6Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of suspension dated 26.03.2026. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Panchayath Development Officer at Ponnasamudra Grama Panchayath, whereas the petitioner is kept under suspension by order dated 26.03.2026 for an alleged incident that had taken place while he was working as in-charge Panchayath Development Officer at Kotagudda Grama Panchayath. It

is also an admitted fact that the articles of charge is issued on 06.03.2026 prior to the order of suspension. In other words, the disciplinary authority has collected all the material evidences and thereafter, has issued articles of charge. Once the articles of charge is issued, the question of tampering witness or material evidence would not arise. The purpose and object of keeping an official under suspension is to keep him out of mischief zone and to see that he would not tamper with the evidence.

¶7Furthermore, when the petitioner is working somewhere else and when the allegation on which the petitioner is suspended, is of more than two years old and when the articles of charge is already issued, the continuation of petitioner under suspension is unwarranted. The respondents instead of paying 50% subsistence allowance to the petitioner as well could extract work by paying full salary. If the disciplinary authority or State is of the opinion that the petitioner still

may influence the witnesses, it is open for them to transfer the petitioner out of the present place also.

¶8The Tribunal has failed to notice that the charge memo is already issued and there is no question of tampering witness or material. When the articles of charges are issued, it was for the Tribunal to examine whether the authority, who suspended the petitioner recorded reasons for keeping the petitioner under suspension. The Tribunal has also failed to examine whether it was necessary for the respondents to keep the petitioner under suspension.

¶9In the above circumstances, the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated

13.07.2026 in Application No.2120/2026 is set aside.

iii. Consequently, impugned order of suspension bearing No.vÀÄf¥À/UÁæ¥ÀA/¹(1)/«§/PÀ.¯ÉÆÃ/01/2025-26 dated

26.03.2026 (Annexure - A4) stands quashed.

iv. It is open for the respondents to provide appropriate posting to the petitioner. v. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20