Departmental inquiry begins only upon issuance of charge sheet: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: A departmental inquiry can be said to commence only upon issuance of a charge sheet, not by a mere act of suspension or
issuance of a show-cause notice, the High Court of Karnataka has said in a recent judgment.

The court said this while revoking the suspension of a Senior Assistant with the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).

Shankar Yamanappa Talawar, who joined the KIADB as a stenographer in 2003, was transferred in December 2022 to the office of the Executive Engineer, Davangere Zonal Office. He could not report immediately as he suffered a cardiac arrest. 

On December 19, 2022, he was suspended on allegations of financial irregularities during his tenure at Dharwad, along with other officials, in payment of compensation to certain land losers amounting to Rs 20 crore. Since no charge sheet was issued, despite passage of six months, the petitioner submitted a representation in June 2023, seeking revocation of suspension. Even after two years, no charge sheet was issued and the petitioner was continued under suspension. 

After he moved the high court, the KIADB initiated a departmental inquiry and issued a show-cause notice-cum-charge sheet, alleging he had a role to play in the payment of Rs 80.04-lakh compensation. 

The petitioner contended that continuation of suspension without adherence to Rule 10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 10(5) is illegal. On the other hand, the KIADB submitted that amended Rule 10 is indicative that it comes into operation only if enquiry is not commenced against the delinquent government servant. 

After perusing the provision, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that Rule 10(5) was substituted by introducing a deeming clause in terms of a notification in October 2020. It stipulates that suspension shall stand automatically revoked in the absence of a charge sheet within six months of suspension. The court further observed that the rule was amended in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the Ajay Kumar Choudhary case. “From the language of the amended provision, a principle emerges with unmistakable clarity, the continuance of suspension beyond 6 months is not to be presumed or prolonged by inertia. It demands an active, reasoned decision by the Competent Authority. In its absence, the law itself intervenes, dissolving the suspension and resorting to the employee’s right to reinstatement, albeit, at a different posting,” Justice Nagaprasanna said. 

The court further stated: “A direction must ensue, to revoke the order of suspension and grant appropriate posting to the petitioner, in accordance with law. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner becomes entitled to the benefits that would flow from the aforesaid direction. The benefits would be, all consequential benefits – service benefits, from the date of expiry of 6 months of the order of suspension.”