Karnataka High Court
WP/7039/2025 of DR. KUMAR ROOPA G Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 17 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:29461-DB WP No. 7039 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 7039 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: DR. KUMAR ROOPA G D/O DR. H.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 7039 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
DR. KUMAR ROOPA G
D/O DR. H. GANGADHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
KACHARAKANAHALLI.
R/AT FLAT NO. 101,
QUEENS CORNER APARTMENT,
B BLOCK, QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH H, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF AVENUE
(STAMPS & REGISTRATION AND DISASTER
MANAGEMENT). M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2.
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS AND
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, 8TH FLOOR,
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
03.03.2025 IN APPLICATION No. 26/2025 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-
A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard learned counsel Sri Mahesh H., for learned counsel Sri Anoop Haranahalli, for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri V. Shivareddy for the respondent.
2. The petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure-A7) and the said order of suspension was the subject matter of Application No.26/2026 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, by its order dated 03.03.2025, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to
HC-KAR
quash the order of suspension, against which, the present writ petition is preferred.
3. I.A.No.2/2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking stay of order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure-G), by which, the suspension of the petitioner is revoked and is posted to work as Sub-Registrar in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ankola.
4. What is questioned in the writ petition is the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting petitioner's prayer to quash the order of suspension and also the order of suspension. Admittedly, the Government under order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure-G) revoked the order of suspension of the petitioner and posted the petitioner to work as Sub-Registrar in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ankola. When the suspension of the petitioner is revoked, the writ petition would not survive for consideration. However, the petitioner's request to stay the said order of revocation of suspension is untenable.
5. The contention that the petitioner cannot be transferred on revocation of suspension has no merit. When suspension of Government servant is revoked, normally he/she would not be posted to the same place that too when
HC-KAR
departmental enquiry is initiated or departmental enquiry is contemplated so as to facilitate fair enquiry. When suspension is revoked and if he/she is posted to the same place or post in which such Government servant was suspended, may lead to tampering of documents or evidence. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Government to post such a Government servant when his/her suspension is revoked to another or different post or place. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in posting the petitioner on revocation of suspension to Ankola.
6. In view of the revocation of suspension of the petitioner under Government order dated 24.03.2025, the writ petition would no more survive for further consideration and accordingly stands disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0