Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order of compulsory retirement imposed on a judicial officer. The Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision, holding that there was no infirmity in the enquiry or punishment, and directed that the order of the Single Judge sustaining the penalty would remain undisturbed.

The proceedings originated from disciplinary action initiated against the appellant, a judicial officer who had entered service as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in February 1995 and was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2005. While functioning as XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, a complaint was lodged by Dr. B. Indumathi alleging that the appellant interfered with ongoing police investigations concerning a criminal complaint against one Smt. Anasuya.

Also Read: Supreme Court Modifies Stray Dog Directions | Bars Street Feeding, Mandates Dedicated Zones | Vaccinated Dogs to Be Released Except Aggressive or Rabies-Infected

It was alleged that the appellant threatened police officials with dire consequences if they summoned Smt. Anasuya to the police station. The allegations led to the institution of a domestic enquiry. Articles of Charges dated 27 April 2011 were framed, and the Registrar (Vigilance) was appointed as the Enquiry Authority.

During enquiry proceedings, the complainant Dr. Indumathi and the concerned Police Inspector, Sri H.T. Jayaramaiah, were examined as prosecution witnesses. The appellant appeared as Defence Witness No. 1. Based on evidence recorded, the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved, concluding that the appellant had threatened the Police Inspector.

Following the enquiry report, a second show cause notice dated 9 April 2012 was served on the appellant. Exercising powers under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by order dated 1 October 2012.

Challenging the penalty, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 52613/2016, contending that he had only advised police officials not to harass his sister, Smt. Anasuya. He denied threatening the officials and asserted that his explanation was not duly considered. The Single Judge, however, found no reason to interfere with the penalty, noting that the charges were established in the enquiry and that due process had been followed.

The appellant thereafter filed Writ Appeal No. 600 of 2025, urging that the Single Judge had failed to properly evaluate his explanation and that the punishment was disproportionate.

The State of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka opposed the appeal, submitting that the enquiry was conducted in compliance with prescribed procedure and that findings of misconduct were supported by evidence.

The Division Bench considered the appeal, beginning by condoning a two-day delay in filing. Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, delivering the oral judgment, recorded: “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.”

The Court set out the settled principles for judicial review of disciplinary action, stating: “It is well-settled that the punition imposed pursuant to domestic enquiry, cannot be interfered with, unless it is established that, i) the enquiry or the punishment imposed is contrary to law; ii) that the procedure adopted is not in conformity with the principles of natural justice or any other law; iii) that the penalties or disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations; iv) that the finding of misconduct is perverse and unreasonable; or v) that the punishment imposed is excessively disproportionate.”

Applying these standards, the Court stated: “In the given facts, we are unable to accept that any of the aforesaid grounds are established, warranting any interference by this Court.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court | Compassionate Appointment Granted To Widow Beyond Age Limit | Court Urges Transport Corporation To Frame Humane Policy

The Court further recorded that the appellant’s contention of merely advising the police not to harass his sister could not be accepted in light of evidence proving that he had threatened officials in connection with the investigation of a complaint lodged by Dr. Indumathi. The Division Bench agreed with the findings of the enquiry authority and the Single Judge that the charges stood established.

The Bench thus concluded that no procedural irregularity, illegality, mala fides, or disproportionality had been demonstrated by the appellant.

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal.  The Bench confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25 February 2025 and upheld the disciplinary authority’s order of compulsory retirement dated 1 October 2012. No further directions were issued, and the relief sought by the appellant stood rejected.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Sri Rajashekar S., Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri K.S. Harish, Government Advocate; Sri Suhas G., Advocate

Case Title: Sri K.M. Gangadhar v. The State of Karnataka & Another

Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:32022-DB

Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 600 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru; Justice C.M. Joshi