A.M. SHANKARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a 'Secretary Grade-I and In-charge Panchayat Development Officer', Arikunte Grama Panchayat, Ronuru Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, is kept under suspension by the second respondent vide the order dtd. 7/12/2025 in exercise of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Conduct and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, 'the CCA Rules']. The petitioner has called this order in question with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in the Application No.5086/2025 with a request for interim order to stay the operation of this order.

(2.) The Tribunal has first heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on 15/12/2025 on the request for interim order extending an opportunity to the learned counsel for the second respondent on 16/12/2025 and 17/12/2025. The Tribunal, after having reserved the application for orders on the request for interim order on 17/12/2025, has refused to grant interim order by the impugned order. The Tribunal has reasoned thus: Considering the claim and counter claims made by both the parties, the plea taken by the applicant is to be considered by the Enquiry Officer during the time of a regular enquiry which going to be initiated or contemplated to initiate against him as mentioned in the impugned order. From the records, it reveals that the auction amount of Rs.3,10,000.00 has been received on 24/2/2025 and the same has been deposited by the applicant to the account of Gram Panchayath as per Annexure-A1 on 7/3/2025. There was a huge delay in depositing the said auction amount into the account of Gram Panchayath. Secondly, when the Gram Panchayath passed the resolution as per the documents produced by the applicant vide Annexures-A2 and A3 series, made it clear that the Gram Panchayath passed resolution for implementation of some schemes under 15th Finance scheme and given liberty to the Panchayath Development Officer to act in accordance with Rules. Apart from that, Panchayath has passed the resolution itself will not allow the applicant to devote [SIC] from the Rules. Apart from that also, when there is a serious allegations of non-following of the provisions of KTPP Act/Rules, it is to be considered as very serious. Moreover, as per the impugned order, the show cause notices were issued to the applicant for his irregularities and also asked him to explain through the phone, inspite of it, he has not attended the phone calls and did not reply to the show cause notices referred in the impugned order i.e., the grave misconduct. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, they are very serious in nature. Therefore, at this stage, we hold that the applicant failed to make out a case for stay of the impugned order. Hence, the interim prayer is hereby rejected.

(3.) Sri C M Nagabushana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension is in the backdrop of the petitioner's alleged failure to respond to show cause notices, but the petitioner has not been issued with any notice; and the learned counsel also argues that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has delayed in making a remittance of Rs.3,10,000.00 but the petitioner has, in fact, credited [as could be seen from the documents produced] a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00. The learned counsel also emphasizes that the petitioner could not have been kept under suspension either because he has disbursed Rs.68,00,000.00 under 15th Finance Project and Class-1 or because of payment of Rs.6,69,000.00to a certain Sonnappa Reddy because the first decision is pursuant to the Resolution of the Grama Panchayat in that regard and the petitioner has not been issued with any communication of the orders of the Lokayukta on the report for payment of Rs.6,69,000.00.