Karnataka High Court: In a writ appeal filed by a Senior Civil Judge against the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon him in a disciplinary inquiry which was upheld by a Single judge of the Court, the Division Bench of Vibhu Bakhru, CJ.*, and C M Joshi, J., upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the allegations against the Senior Civil Judge were established in the enquiry and the punishment imposed pursuant to the domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with, except in certain circumstances.
Background
The Senior Civil Judge joined the judicial service in February 1995 as a Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and was promoted to Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) in 2005. While serving as the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru, a complaint was filed against him alleging that he was interfering with a police investigation concerning a complaint made by the complainant against the accused who was sister of the Senior Civil Judge. It was further alleged that the Senior Civil Judge had threatened police officials with dire consequences if they called the accused to the police station.
Based on these allegations, an enquiry was instituted, and Articles of Charges were issued to the Senior Civil Judge on 27-04-2011. The Registrar (Vigilance) was appointed as the Enquiring Authority, who found that the Senior Civil Judge had threatened the Police Inspector over a call that lasted for 10 to 15 minutes, and that the charges were established. Subsequently, using powers under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, the Senior Civil Judge was given the penalty of compulsory retirement. This penalty was affirmed by a Single Judge of the Court in an order dated 25-02-2025. The Senior Civil Judge, aggrieved by the decision dated 25-02-2025 filed the present petition. The Senior Civil Judge argued that he had only called the police station to ask them not to harass his sister, which was not accepted by the Single Judge of the Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court found the Senior Civil Judge’s contention that he had merely asked the police not to harass his sister to be unconvincing. The Court observed that there was no infirmity with the procedure adopted, and the punishment imposed was not disproportionate. The Court noted that,
“it is well-settled that the punishment imposed pursuant to a domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with, unless it is established that:
-
the enquiry or the punishment imposed is contrary to law
-
that the procedure adopted is not in conformity with the principles of natural justice or any other law
-
that the penalties or disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations
-
that the finding of misconduct is perverse and unreasonable
-
that the punishment imposed is excessively disproportionate”
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Senior Civil Judge.
[K.M. Gangadhar v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 18333, decided on 19-08-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Rajashekar S., Advocate
For the Respondent: K.S. Harish, Government Advocate For R-1 & Suhas G., Advocate For R-2
