S L HALESHAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that requires to be answered in this writ petition is as to whether sub-rule (1)(aa) of Rule 10 is subject to sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('the Rules' for short)?

(2.) The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointing authority without independently evaluating the material collected by the Lokayukta Police, has ordered for the petitioner's suspension in exercise of the power under Rule 10(1)(aa) of the Rules. According to the counsel, this is contrary to sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules. He submitted that the appointing authority ought to have independently examined the material collected by the Lokayukta Police and on such examination, if it had come to the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence to support the charge made against the petitioner, then it could have placed the petitioner under suspension. As the matter is not examined as per sub-rule (3), the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

(3.) To examine the contention urged, it is relevant to quote Rule 10 of the Rules to the extent it is relevant herein: