Denial Of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Amounts To “Economic Excommunication”: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that subsistence allowance is mandatory in any circumstance of suspension of an employee, and “he cannot be denied his statutory subsistence allowance.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna said this while allowing a petition by Basavaraj Pundalikappa and quashing the suspension order dated 22-07-2025. The petitioner joined as an attender in Bagalkote Municipal Council in 1985 and has completed 41 years of service.
While working as Revenue Officer in 2015, a Lokayukta complaint alleged demand of illegal gratification. Though the trap was laid against another officer, the petitioner was also taken into custody for 96 hours and granted bail. He was suspended for having been in custody for more than 48 hours.
The petitioner argued that the suspension was issued without application of mind, and not a rupee of subsistence allowance was paid. He also stated that only five months of service remained and he had an unblemished record. The deeming fiction was applied four months later, which he said was illegal.
The State submitted that suspension was compulsory when an employee is in custody beyond 48 hours, and subsistence allowance would be paid if directed.
The Court noted the suspension order was delayed and “on the dictate of the Lokayukta without any semblance of independent application of mind.” It referred to Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka CCA Rules, 1957 and the 13-01-2015 circular mandating examination of material and a reasoned order.
The Court observed: “Suspension is not a penalty… when wielded without any reason or restraint, it degenerates into punishment, sometimes more severe than extreme penalties.”
It added that denial of subsistence allowance was “nothing short of economic and professional excommunication.”
Holding the order illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, the Court said it violated Rule 10(3) and the circular.
Allowing the petition, the Court reserved liberty to the State to post the petitioner “in any other position commensurate with administrative exigencies.”
Appearance: Advocate Sunil S Desai for Petitioner.
HCGP Kirilata R Patil FOR R1 TO R3.
Advocate Vishwanath Badiger FOR R4.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
Case Title: BASAVARAJ S/O. PUNDALIKAPPA AND The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106080 OF 2025