CHIDANANDA L. B. Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order in Application No.325/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench [for short, 'Tribunal'], and the Tribunal by the impugned order, has opined that prior notice to the respondents would be necessary before considering grant of interim order. The petitioner has filed this application in No.325/2024 with the Tribunal impugning inter alia the second respondent's order dtd. 17/1/2024 [Annexure-A4 in Annexure-B], and the second respondent, by this impugned order, has kept the petitioner, who was working at the relevant time as Deputy Range Forest Officer, Rajarajeshwarinagar Range, under suspension as contemplated under Rule-10 of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeals] Rules, 1957.

(2.) Sri Sandesh Kumar M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's specific case is that he was holding additional charge for the post of Range Forest Officer of Rajarajeshwarinagar Range only till 1/1/2024 and the alleged complaint about illegal felling of trees in the private property is on 4/1/2024 and that the concerned Range Officer is the Range Forest Officer, Bommanahalli Range, has acted upon this complaint and notwithstanding these circumstances, the petitioner is kept under suspension.

(3.) Smt. Savithramma, the learned Additional Government Advocate, apart from contesting the petitioner's claim as aforesaid, submits that the question whether there must be stay of second respondent's Order dtd. 17/1/2024 [Annexure-A4 in Annexure-B] is still at large with the Tribunal and therefore, this Court may not grant any interim order. However, given the grounds urged and the consezquences that could befall if despite prima facie case, the petitioner is under suspension, this Court is of the considered opinion that there must be stay of the operation of the second respondent's Order dtd. 17/1/2024 until the Tribunal considers the petitioner's request for such Order after due opportunity to the respondents. Hence the following:ORDER The petition stands disposed of staying operation of the second respondent's Order dtd. 17/1/2024 [Annexure-A4 in Annexure-B] for the period until the Tribunal decides on the petitioner's request for interim order, and the Tribunal shall consider the rival submissions uninfluenced by the interim arrangement as provided now by this Court.