ABDUL WAJID Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is placed before us to consider the office objections regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench to entertain this petition.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as an Inspector of Motor Vehicles in November 1978. Thereafter he was promoted as Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector during June 1992. He was further promoted as Assistant Senior Inspector in August 2010. He has been working as Assistant Regional Transport Officer at Humanabad Check Post. By an order dated 18.12.2012 he was placed in additional charge of the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer at Bhalki and Basavakalyana respectively. The Lokayuktha Police based upon alleged credible information received on 28.11.2012 to the effect that the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the Humanabad RTO Check Post are colluding with private persons and receiving illegal gratification from public, while performing the duty of checking the vehicles passing through the said check post, registered a suo-moto case in Crime No. 09/12 for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested along with other accused. He was released on bail. The police are yet to file the final report in respect of the said case. In the meanwhile, the first respondent-the State Government passed an order dated 8.1.2013 keeping the petitioner under suspension and the second respondent-The Commissioner for Transport passed another order of suspension dated 5.1.2013 keeping the petitioner under suspension with effect from 28.11.2012 on the ground that he had been detained in police custody for more than 48 hours. Aggrieved by the said orders of suspension dated 8.1.2013 and 5.1.2013 the petitioner approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 528/13 seeking to quash the impugned order of suspension passed by the first and second respondents. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance and they filed their reply statement. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties at length dismissed the said application holding that there is no infirmity in the order of suspension. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before the Principal Bench.

(3.) The Office has raised the following objection:-