The Karnataka High Court has overturned the suspension order against Shiva Shankarappa S Sahukar, the Chairman of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), issued by the State Governor on July 10. The court commanded the state to reinstate Sahukar within a week, as per the ruling delivered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj in the case titled Shiva Shankarappa S Sahukar v. The Special Secretary.
Suspension Order Quashed
Justice Suraj Govindaraj declared the suspension unsustainable, citing non-compliance with the constitutional procedure outlined in Article 317 of the Indian Constitution for the removal of a commission chairperson. The court emphasized that Sahukar should receive all related service and financial benefits upon reinstatement. However, the court prohibited Sahukar from influencing any decisions concerning his daughters within the commission.
Constitutional Clarification
The court clarified that its decision solely addressed the constitutional validity of the suspension order and did not rule on the veracity of allegations against Sahukar or his daughters. It further stated that any new action against Sahukar must be initiated based on the advice and consent of the Council of Ministers. The judgment underscored that suspension under Article 317(2) requires such procedural adherence.
Allegations Against Sahukar
Sahukar was suspended following accusations of manipulating the selection process to appoint his daughters to government positions. His daughters reportedly gained employment under Category 3B—a reserved category—while their father participated in their selection. Allegations included the use of a falsified income certificate, indicating an annual income of ₹40,000, despite Sahukar’s actual salary being approximately ₹2.71 lakh monthly. It was also alleged that they obtained a caste certificate for benefits entitled to Other Backward Classes, exempt from the creamy layer.
Legal Representation and Arguments
In his legal challenge, Sahukar, represented by Senior Advocate M Arun Shyam, contended that the Governor lacked the jurisdiction to invoke Article 317(2) because no presidential reference to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1) had been made. Sahukar’s plea highlighted the two-stage constitutional framework for removing and suspending State Public Service Commission officials, underscoring the necessity for a presidential referral to the Supreme Court for inquiry under Article 317(1).
More Read
Government’s Defense
The State government was represented by Advocate General K Shashikiran Shetty, while Senior Advocate Uday Holla, supported by Advocate K Abhishek Kumar, defended the Secretary to the Governor. The petition challenging the Governor’s order was filed through Advocate R Dileep Kumar Gowda.
The court’s detailed judgment is awaited, which will further elucidate the legal standing of the suspension order and the implications for the KPSC Chairman. The case highlights significant constitutional considerations regarding the removal and suspension of public service commission officials in India.
