While President Droupadi Murmu has made reference to the Supreme Court for conducting an inquiry against Shivashankarappa S.
Sahukar, chairperson of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), on allegations of misbehaviour, the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday set aside the Karnataka Governor’s order of suspending him from the post and ordered his reinstatement.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the High Court, while reading out the operative portion of the judgment, said that the Governor’s order in suspending Mr.
Sahukar is illegal as the Governor had “acted in the absence of aid and advice of the Council of Ministers prior to issuing the order of suspension”.
When the advocate-on-record for the Governor brought to the court’s notice that the President, acting on the Governor’s recommendation, on August 14 had referred to the apex court to hold an inquiry into the allegations against Mr.
Sahukar, the court said that the issue raised in Mr.
Sahukar’s case was on a different legal point.
Though the court ordered reinstatement of Mr.
Sahukar within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the verdict, it barred him from taking part in any of the decisions and actions of the KPSC in relation to selection of his two daughters.
The court also said that Mr.
Sahukar is entitled to all consequential monetary benefits from the date of his suspension and reinstatement.
While partly allowing Mr.
Sahukar’s petition, the court rejected his contention that the Governor had no power to suspend the chairman/member of the State Public Service Commission (SPSC) till the President, acting on the Governor’s recommendation, makes reference to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution for holding an enquiry against the chairperson/member of a SPSC.
It was argued on behalf of Mr.
Sahukar that the Governor gets power to suspend chairperson/members of SPSC only after the President makes a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1) and until the President passes orders after receipt of the report of inquiry from the Supreme Court on such reference.
However, rejecting this argument, the High Court pointed out that the apex court had found no fault in suspension of a member of the Maharashtra State Public Service Commission during the pendency of reference to the Supreme Court by the President citing gravity of the allegations against the suspended member.
The Governor had suspended Mr.
Sahukar on the complaints that he had facilitated illegally selection of his two daughters to the posts of Industrial Extension Officer in an unlawful manner through the KPSC.
It was stated by the Governor that Mr.
Sahukar failed to recuse himself or formally declare a conflict of interest while his direct dependants participated in the KPSC selection process.
Also, the Governor noted that one of the daughter of Mr.
Sahukar obtained the income and caste certificate by declaring the family income of ₹40,000/- per annum by deliberate suppression of facts and using manipulated lower-income declarations in spite of having income more than the prescribed limit and knowing that his father is working as the Chairman of the KPSC.
The problem with recruitment in Karnataka KPSC row in Karnataka: How did the ‘irregularities’ unfold?
