2024 (6) TMI 708 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Suspension of petitioners from service - habitually accepting illegal gratification - HELD THAT - The orders of suspension had been kept in abeyance pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and connected matters by its order. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Tribunal and the impugned order was passed on 05.10.2023. The same was challenged before this Court and this Court had again issued interim order staying the suspension as against the petitioners herein. It is also admitted by the learned counsel appearing on either side that the charge memos have been issued to all the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions and that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against them. In view of the fact that more than eight months have elapsed from the date of the order of suspension and since suspension had not been given effect to due to orders passed by this Court on two occasions, it is opined that at present all that requires to be done is to permit the petitioners, who had not suffered the consequence of the orders of suspension, to continue in service subject, of course, to the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against them. In case any of the writ petitioners are still working in the posts from which they were suspended it will be open to the respondents to consider whether they require to be moved out of the said posts. The suspension orders which were under challenge before the Tribunal shall not be given effect to. The petitioners shall be permitted to continue in service, subject to posting orders - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to suspension orders based on news item, legality of suspension orders, quashing of FIRs, continuation of suspension orders, disciplinary proceedings, compliance with Prevention of Corruption Act, extension of suspension, automatic reinstatement.

The judgment pertains to a batch of writ petitions challenging suspension orders issued by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) against officers of the Commercial Tax Department following allegations of illegal gratification aired on a news channel. The petitioners contended that the suspension orders were based on a news item and were subsequently challenged in court. FIRs were registered based on a sting operation, leading to further legal challenges under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. The FIRs were eventually quashed due to non-compliance with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically Section 17-A.

The petitioners argued that due to the quashing of the FIRs and their transfer from their original posts, the suspension served no purpose. Charge memos were issued, and disciplinary proceedings initiated against some petitioners. The respondents, however, maintained that the sting operations were valid, and disciplinary proceedings were ongoing. The Tribunal found the suspension to be sustainable, considering the circumstances.

Regarding the extension of suspension, it was argued that the period of six months specified in the Karnataka Civil Service Rules could not be applied due to the interim orders staying the suspension. The government sought permission to consider extending the suspension based on individual cases. After considering the arguments, the Court decided to allow the petitioners who had not faced the consequences of suspension to continue in service, subject to ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The suspension orders were not to be enforced, and the petitioners could be reposted as necessary, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of, permitting the petitioners to continue in service with certain conditions regarding their postings and the disciplinary proceedings.