'No Prima-Facie Evidence Of Gross Dereliction Of Duty': Karnataka High Court Quashes Suspension Of Engineer Over Hospital Wall Collapse

The Karnataka High Court quashed the suspension of an executive engineer over the collapse of Bowring Hospital's compound wall in Bengaluru which claimed 7 lives in April, observing that the falling of the wall does not create "prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty" in absence of specific evidence against the officer.

The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr Justice K. Manmadha Rao set aside M.B Nagaraj's suspension, an executive engineer of the Health & Family Welfare Department noting that the requirement of 'prima facie evidence against him' under clause Rule 10(1)(d) Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was non-existent in the present case.

“…The usage of the word 'him' would indicate that such evidence is required insofar as the officer who is proposed to be suspended and not the event itself”, the court noted in the order, emphasising the aforesaid requirement before accusing the jurisdictional officer for the fall of the compound wall.

“…In the present case, the event of the falling of the compound wall by itself does not create any prima facie evidence of gross dereliction against the petitioner, but it is only the evidence of falling of the compound wall, which though tragic, cannot at present be attributed to the Petitioner on account of gross dereliction, let alone be prima facie evidence of gross dereliction...”, the court said in its order.

On April 29, 2026, seven people were killed, including a six-year-old, and another seven were injured due to the compound wall's collapse at the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital amidst heavy rains.

On May 1, 2026, Nagaraj was placed under suspension by the Health and Family Welfare Department under the CCA Rules for 'prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty'. The suspended officer challenged the order before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), Principal Bench, Bengaluru, but to no avail. KSAT, while rejecting the plea on May 6, reasoned that a local enquiry committee and a technical inspection team of the Public Works Department (PwD) were looking into the matter and that proceedings were in progress.

Thereafter, the petitioner-officer approached the High Court.

For the officer, Senior Advocate P.S Rajagopal, submitted that there was no prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty. The Public Works Department has constituted a technical investigating team, and without its report implicating the officer, the suspension order couldn't be sustained, argued the counsel.

The State department, on the other hand, contended that the compound wall fell within the executive engineer's jurisdiction, which implied prima facie evidence against him under Rule 10(1)(d) of CCA Rules.

Noting the submissions made by both parties, the court observed that the two committees constituted by the PwD to investigate the incident has not yet submitted their reports.

“…It is for the committees to submit their report, indicating if there is a gross dereliction of duty by the Petitioner and if that be so, the respondents would be free to exercise their powers under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCA Rules…”, the Division Bench accordingly concluded.

Therefore, the Division Bench set aside the KSAT order dated May 6 and the prior suspension order dated May 1. The court has granted the respondent state department the liberty to initiate fresh action under Rule 10(1)(d) of CCA Rules upon receipt of the PwD Committee's report about the tragic incident.

Case Title: M.B. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 15660 of 2026 (S-KSAT)

Click Here To Read/Download Order