Karnataka High Court upholds compulsory retirement of senior civil judge for misconduct

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has confirmed the order of compulsory retirement from service, imposed upon a Senior Civil Judge.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi dismissed the writ appeal filed by KM Gangadhar while observing that there was no infirmity in the procedure adopted in the enquiry proceedings.

Gangadhar had joined the judicial service as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in February 1995.

He was promoted as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2005. While he was functioning as a Civil Judge (Senior Division), XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, a complaint was filed by Dr B Indumathi, alleging that the Judge was interfering in investigation being conducted by the police in a complaint lodged by her against one Anasuya (Anasuyamma). It is stated that Anasuya is the judge's sister.

The complaint alleged that the judge had threatened the police officials with dire consequences if they called Anasuya to the police station.

On April 27, 2011, Articles of Charges were issued to Gangadhar and the Registrar (Vigilance) was appointed as the Enquiring Authority. The Enquiry Officer had examined the complainant, the concerned Police Inspector, HT Jayaramaiah as well as the judge. The enquiry found that the judge threatened the Police Inspector and the report said that the charges against the judge were established.

On October 1, 2012, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 [the CCA Rules], the Gangadhar was penalized compulsory retirement.

Gangadhar moved the division bench after a single bench dismissed his petition in February 2025. He contended that the single bench had not examined his explanation, which, according to him, should have been accepted.

The division bench noted that the evidence established that he had threatened the police officials regarding the investigations. The bench also pointed out that a phone call was made on August 20, 2007, wherein the judge was heard abusing and threatening the police officials.

“We are unable to accept the said contention. We find no infirmity with either the procedure adopted nor find that the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate. It is well-settled that the punishment imposed pursuant to a domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with unless it is established that i) the enquiry or the punishment imposed is contrary to law; ii) the procedure adopted is not in conformity with the principles of natural justice or any other law; iii) the penalties or disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations; iv) the finding of misconduct is perverse and unreasonable; or v) the punishment imposed is excessively disproportionate,” the division bench said.