Suspension Must Be Based on Disciplinary Authority’s Own Satisfaction, Not Viral Videos or Political Pressure: Karnataka High Court Flags Procedural Lapses in Panchayat Officer's Suspension

“A mere reference to a social media clip and a communication from a superior cannot substitute the independent satisfaction required under Rule 10 of the KCS (CCA) Rules,” held the Karnataka High Court, while disposing of a writ petition filed by a suspended Panchayat Development Officer challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s refusal to grant ex-parte interim relief.

Division Bench comprising Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad and Justice T.M. Nadaf declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s interim decision, but strongly reminded that suspension under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 must be supported by the “independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority” and not merely based on a third-party communication or political allegations.

“Viral Video Not a Substitute for Evidence or Complaint”: Suspension Without FIR or Complaint Challenged as Arbitrary

The petitioner, Shivanand Marakeri, a Panchayat Development Officer posted in Sasalu Grama Panchayat, challenged the suspension order dated 9 October 2025 issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The order referred to a video clip allegedly showing the petitioner receiving illegal gratification in connection with Khata transfer at his earlier posting in Hardipura Grama Panchayat. The CEO of the Zilla Panchayat forwarded the video to the Disciplinary Authority, following which the suspension was imposed.

However, as the petitioner pointed out, no formal complaint, FIR, or departmental inquiry preceded the suspension, and the Disciplinary Authority had not independently verified the allegations or the authenticity of the video.

The High Court noted this concern, observing:

“The allegation against the petitioner is based on a video clipping seen by the Chief Executive Officer and not by the Disciplinary Authority... It is the Disciplinary Authority who had to be satisfied that there was prima facie case for keeping the petitioner under suspension.”

“Refusal of Ex-Parte Interim Relief by Tribunal Is Not Ground for Writ”: High Court Emphasizes Judicial Discipline, But Issues Time-Bound Directions

While the petitioner sought urgent relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court reminded that such interference is not warranted unless the statutory alternative remedy is shown to be illusory or inefficacious.

The Court emphasized:

“The Tribunal is yet to decide on the merits of the petitioner's request for interim order... this Court is not inclined at this stage to interfere.”

Nevertheless, recognising the potential misuse of suspension powers and procedural irregularity, the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure time-bound adjudication by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the Court directed:

“The Tribunal must consider the petitioner’s request for interim order in the light of the grounds urged and the material... and dispose of the petitioner’s application on merits by 14.11.2025.”

“Suspension Cannot Be Weaponised Through Third-Party Allegations”: Court Reinforces Administrative Fairness

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, submitted that the disciplinary action was politically motivated and orchestrated through unofficial channels, stating that:

“The decision is politically motivated... not even a complaint is registered against the petitioner.”

The High Court did not adjudicate on this allegation but underscored that the Disciplinary Authority must act with procedural propriety and fairness, especially when invoking the extraordinary power of suspension under Rule 10.

The government advocate, Sri Vikas Rojipura, clarified that the Tribunal had listed the matter for hearing on 30 October 2025, where both sides would have a chance to present their contentions.

In sum, the Karnataka High Court declined to grant relief directly under its writ jurisdiction but issued a clear signal on procedural integrity in disciplinary actions. The Court’s refusal to interfere prematurely respects the principle of judicial restraint but is tempered with firm directions to the Tribunal to consider the suspension challenge promptly and fairly.

By emphasizing the requirement of “independent satisfaction” of the Disciplinary Authority and cautioning against over-reliance on unverified social media clips, the Court has drawn a sharp line against arbitrary and politically influenced suspensions in public service.

Date of Decision: 23 October 2025