The Karnataka High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of a civil judge who was found guilty of threatening a police inspector and interfering in a criminal investigation [KM Gangadhar v. State of Karnataka & Anr].
The disciplinary action, imposed in October 2012, was initially challenged by the judge before a single judge of the High Court. When that challenge was dismissed, the matter was taken in appeal before a Division Bench. On August 19, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no illegality, procedural irregularity, or disproportionality in the punishment imposed. “We find no infirmity with either the procedure adopted nor find that the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate,” the Court observed.
KM Gangadhar had joined the judicial service in 1995 and was later promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division). In 2007, Dr. B. Indumathi lodged a complaint alleging that the judge had interfered in a police investigation concerning a case involving his sister. It was alleged that the judge threatened police officials with dire consequences if they summoned his sister for enquiry.
An enquiry was subsequently conducted, during which both the complainant and a police inspector testified. The enquiry officer held the charges to be proved, concluding that the judge had abused and intimidated the police during a phone call lasting 10–15 minutes. Based on these findings, the disciplinary authority ordered his compulsory retirement under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957.
The appellant, however, denied threatening the police. He argued that he had merely requested the officials not to harass his sister. This defence was rejected by the disciplinary authority, which found sufficient evidence to establish that the judge had, in fact, threatened the police.
While considering the appeal, the Division Bench reiterated that courts cannot interfere in disciplinary proceedings unless there is clear evidence of illegality, violation of natural justice, mala fides, or perversity in the decision-making process. Since no such grounds were established in this case, the appeal was dismissed, thereby upholding the penalty of compulsory retirement.
Advocate Rajashekar S appeared for the appellant. Government Advocate KS Harish represented the State of Karnataka, while Advocate Suhas G appeared for the High Court administration.
Picture Source :
