SHIVASHANKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is working as Statistical Assistant in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics in Karnataka. By an order made by the Director dated 15th May 1984 the Petitioner has been placed under suspension. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief praying for the quashing of the said order which is at Annexure-A to the Petition inter alia, contending that the order is made without proper application of mind and without satisfaction being recorded, that the suspension has become necessary on the facts and circum-stances stated in the order.

(2.) In order to appreciate the above contentions as well as the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it would become necessary to set out the operative portion of the order in question.

(3.) Mr. K. Subba Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on the facts disclosed in the first paragraph above, has stated that the Officer signing the order of suspension himself did not desire the suspension of the Officer but merely carried out the request of some one else and therefore such an order which has been mechanically made suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and non-recording of satisfaction for the need to make suspension order. He has essentially placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Nayak -v.- Union of India, AIR1972 SC 554 , 1972 LablC313 , (1972 )I LLJ535 SC , (1972 )1 SCC332 , [1972 ]2 SCR695 . In that decision, the Supreme Court was considering Rule 3 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Sub-rule(l) of Rule 3 of the Rules provides for making an order of suspension only in the event of there being satisfaction having regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances of the necessity or desirability of placing under suspension, the member of the Service against whom the disciplinary proceedings had been started. Especially having regard to the language of the sub-rule itself that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was no satisfaction recorded and therefore the suspension order in that case was bad.