The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on a Civil Judge accused of threatening the Police, observed that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted nor the punishment imposed was highly disproportionate.
The Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi observed, "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 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."
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Rajashekar S. while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate K.S. Harish.
The Appellant had joined the judicial service as a Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) in February 1995 and was promoted as a Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) in the year 2005. While he was functioning as a Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.), a Complaint was received from one Dr. B. Indumathi, alleging that the Appellant was interfering in investigations being conducted by the Police in respect of a complaint lodged by her against one Smt. Anasuya. It was alleged that the Appellant had inter alia, threatened the Police Officials of dire consequences if they called Smt. Anasuya to the Police Station. An enquiry was instituted and Articles of Charges were issued to the Appellant and the Registrar (Vigilance), was appointed as the Enquiring Authority. During the course of the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer found that the Appellant had threatened the Police Inspector and the charges levelled against the Appellant stood established. The Appellant was issued with a second show cause notice enclosing therewith the enquiry report and thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, the Appellant was inflicted with the penalty of compulsory retirement.It was the Appellant's case that he had called the concerned Police Station and had told the Officials not to harass his sister. However, the said contention was not accepted for several reasons. First, the evidence produced established that the Appellant had threatened the Police Officials with regard to the investigations regarding the complaint made by Dr. B. Indumathi against Smt. Anasuya. It was also proved that the Appellant had abused the concerned Police Officials over phone and had threatened them over a phone call that lasted for about 10 to 15 minutes. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Single Judge had not examined the Appellant's explanation and that the Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the explanation provided by the Appellant ought to have been acceptedThe Court refused to accept the said contention and the Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: K.M. Gangadhar vs. The State of Karnataka (2025:KHC:32022-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant- Advocate Rajashekar S.
Respondent- Government Advocate K.S. Harish, Advocate Suhas G.
Click here to read/ download Order
|