P. Rajeev vs The Commissioner, BBMP Bangalore and The Deputy Commissioner of Administration, BBMP Bangalore

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

The petitioner, who was working as Deputy Director of Town Planning (South) in Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and transferred on 20.07.2011 to Storm Water Drain Division, to work under the Chief Engineer of Storm Water Drain Division, has filed this writ petition questioning an order made by the 2nd respondent on 29.07.2011. placing him under suspension pending disciplinary action.

Sri G.Gangi Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, firstly contended that, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal since the petitioner had nothing to do with W.P. 13653/2010 and the statement of objection/affidavit filed therein by the Corporation was not been done at the instance of the petitioner and that the petitioner only obeyed the directions of his official Superior and handed over the papers to the Advocate concerned and even otherwise, petitioner having been transferred on 20.07.2011 from the post of Deputy Director, Town Planning (South) to work under the Chief Engineer of Storm Water Drain Division and the petitioner having reported to duty in the transferred place, there was no need to place the petitioner under suspension. Secondly, the impugned order has been mechanically passed. Thirdly, Sri S.S. Thopogi, Additional Director of Town Planning, filed Application No. 4898/2011, questioning the order keeping him under suspension and the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal passed an order of stay dated 02.08.2011, as at Annexure-G. Fourthly, Mr. Nataraj, Joint Director, Town Planning, questioned the order of suspension passed against him in W.P. 34875/2011 and that the respondents revoked the order of suspension and W.P. 34875/2011 was dismissed on 18.10.2011 as not surviving for consideration. Learned counsel submitted that, in view of the interim order passed on 10.08.2011, the respondents gave effect to the same by issuing an office order dated 07.09.2011 and that the petitioner continues to work under the Chief Engineer in the Storm Water Drain Division and in the circumstances, there is no justification to place the petitioner under suspension.

Sri R. Subramanya, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents does not dispute the fact of suspension order made against S.S. Thopagi having been stayed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the order of suspension made against Mr. Nataraj having been revoked by the respondents. Learned counsel did not dispute the fact of the petitioner having been transferred from the Office of Town Planning. However, learned counsel submitted that, keeping in view the position which the petitioner holds, there being possibility of tampering with the evidence, the order of suspension pending disciplinary enquiry was ordered. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation appearing against the petitioner is grave.

I have perused the record. The rival contentions have received my consideration.

Scope of interference in exercise of judicial review in matters relating to suspension of an employee from service is limited. However, if the order of suspension was not been made in public interest, such order cannot be upheld.

Alleging commission of acts of misconduct in the matter of filing objections with verifying affidavit on behalf of BBMP i.e., W.P. 13653/2010, Sri S.S. Thopagi, Additional Director of Town Planning, Mr. Nataraj, Joint Director of Town Planning and the petitioner were placed under suspension. After filing of statement of objections on behalf of respondents 4 to 6 in W.P. 13653/2010, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Deputy Director, Town Planning (South) to work as Executive Engineer under the Chief Engineer in the Storm Water Drain Division. Thus, the petitioner has been kept away from the Town Planning Section. Order of suspension passed against Mr. Nataraj, Joint Director, Town Planning, was revoked by the respondent''s. Order of suspension passed against S.S. Thopagi, has been stayed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal on 02.08.2011.

Sri Gangi Reddy submitted that the petitioner will not indulge in any act, which can be called as ''tampering of evidence'' and that the petitioner would render ready co-operation to the respondents in the matter of holding a departmental enquiry into the alleged acts of misconduct, stated in the office order at Annexure-A. In the circumstances, there cannot be tampering of evidence of the Town Planning Section (South) by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already been transferred from the Town Planning Section, he cannot have any access to any records of the Town Planning Section.

The impugned order was passed pending enquiry into the acts of misconduct stated in Annexure-A. The purpose of placing the petitioner under suspension is to keep him away from having any access to the record of W.P. 13653/2010 of the Town Planning Section of BBMP The said object has been achieved by the transfer order passed on 20.07.2011, which was complied with by the petitioner, who reported to the Chief Engineer. Storm Water Drain Division.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuance of the petitioner under suspension is not in public interest since he will have to be paid subsistence allowance without he attending to the duty of his Office. The public will also suffer on account of non-availability of the Officer concerned in the Storm Water Drain Division- Hence, I pass the following order:

Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.

However, respondents are at liberty to expeditiously conduct departmental enquiry into the acts of misconduct of the petitioner and others, if any, in the matter of filing statement of objections/affidavit in W.P. 13653/2010 and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this order would not come in the way of respondents placing the petitioner under suspension, in case such a course of action becomes necessary in public interest, on account of any acts of tampering with evidence - oral and documentary, by the petitioner i.e., by misutilising his position in the BBMP.

There shall be no order as to costs.