Karnataka High Court Stays Centre's Order Debarring Former HC Judge From Govt Appointments For 3 Yrs
The Karnataka High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (January 28) stayed a November 7, 2024 Central Government order by which a former High Court judge Justice Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai was debarred for three years from any Government appointments. Justice R Devdas stayed the order till the next date of hearing of the petition filed by Desai challenging the order and also issued notice to...
The Karnataka High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (January 28) stayed a November 7, 2024 Central Government order by which a former High Court judge Justice Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai was debarred for three years from any Government appointments.
Justice R Devdas stayed the order till the next date of hearing of the petition filed by Desai challenging the order and also issued notice to the respondent returnable on February 6.
The court said “There shall be an ad-interim order of stay of the impugned order, till the next date of hearing.”
Justice Desai has been appointed by the State Government as the One Man Commission of Inquiry, to probe the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam, involving Chief Minister Siddaramiah and others.
Senior Advocate Uday Holla, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he was appointed as a judicial member of the Central Administrative Tribunal but had sought postponement of joining as he had already taken up the assignment offered by the State government. Instead of considering the same the Central Government has barred him.
Referring to an office memorandum of the authority dated 2009, it was informed that consent of selected candidates should be obtained before sending the ACC proposal to the Secretariat of the Appointments Committee of the Government of India. Further, it provides that if the candidate does not join within 30- days, the administrative department should issue a 15-day notice, calling upon the candidate either to join or face debarment clearly spelling out the consequence of debarment.
It was contended that neither the consent was obtained nor a notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order by the department.
Following this the court passed the interim order and orally indicated that on the next date of hearing it would finally decide the petition.
Case Title: Justice PADMARAJ NEMACHANDRA DESAI AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 2274/2025
Appearance: Senior advocate Uday Holla for Advocate Prateek Rath and Girish B.M for petitioner