B M RAMEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Preliminary Hearing This petition is filed by Dr. B.M.Ramegowda who was working at the Primary Health Centre at Kanaswadi in Doddaballapur Taluk between 16-7-1971 and 19.8.1974. On the basis of the inspection report pertaining to the Primary Health Centre at Kanaswadi, the Government became aware that there were grave irregulaities and large sums were withdrawn during the year 1974-75 and 1976-77 from the treasury wtihout the same being taken in the cash books nor was there any disbursement of the cash withdrawn, in the two years mentioned earlier. By an order dated 13-5-1980 the respondent-State directed that the petitioner and two others, also Doctors, who were at the Primary Health Centre of Kanaswadi at the relevant time be kept under suspension with immediate, effect subject to their getting subsistence allowance in accordance with the Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Dr. Rame Gowda has impugned, the same, inter alia contending that Rule 10 (i) (a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') is not attracted to the case of the petitioner and therefore the order of suspension is one made without jurisdiction. It is also contended by the petitioner that the order of suspension has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by keeping the officer under suspension in as much as he is no longer working at Kanaswadi Primary Health Centre, but is working at a different health centre.

(2.) Learned counsel has strenuously argued that the order does not indicate that enquiry or disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. A perusal of the order which is at Annexure-E to the petition clearly indicates the detailed circumstances under which the respondent-State has come to the conclusion that serious case of misappropriation has been made out in the audit report and therefore it has considered it necessary to place the officers named under suspension pending further enquiry and institution of disciplinary proceedings. The preamble of the order which contains these details not only shows clear application of mind but also shows the intention to proceed with further enquiry and subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the officials who were in charge of the Primary Health Centre at Kanaswadi during the relevant periods. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order impugned made under Rule 10(i) (a) of the Rules is not without jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned counsel has seriously urged that suspension has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by keeping the officer under suspension as there was no possibility of his interfering with the enquiry or with the proceedings that may be instituted in accordance with the decision of the Government. This is a matter which the disciplinary authority is in a better position to decide than the courts. Unless a very strong case is made out that no nexus can whatsoever possibly exist having regard to the trivial nature of the misconduct of the Government servant, this court would not readily accept that suspension has no nexus to the enquiry contemplated. In the instant case, as is apparent in the preamble, to the impugned order three Doctors are involved in the enquiry and it is possible that a common enquiry is likely to be held as those three doctors are serving in different places. To facilitate the expeditious progress of the disciplinary proceedings, if commenced, it will be necessary to relieve the petitioner and two others from the present duties till the enquiry is terminated. As earlier pointed out, by me, suspension of the delinquent official or officer is almost a condition precedent for a normal enquiry in disciplinary proceedings, if the charges are of a serious nature.