Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has confirmed the compulsory retirement of a senior civil judge following a misconduct inquiry. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi dismissed a writ appeal filed by KM Gangadhar in this regard.Gangadhar joined the judicial service as a civil judge (junior division) in Feb 1995 and was promoted to civil judge (senior division) in 2005. While he was serving as a civil judge (senior division) and XIII additional chief metropolitan magistrate in Bengaluru city, a complaint was filed by one B Indumathi alleging that Gangadhar had interfered in the police investigation related to her complaint against his sister, Anasuya. It was alleged that Gangadhar threatened cops with dire consequences if they summoned Anasuya to the police station.An inquiry was initiated based on these allegations, and the HC registrar (vigilance) was appointed as the inquiry authority. Indumathi, police inspector HT Jayaramaiah, and Gangadhar himself were questioned.The inquiry officer concluded that Gangadhar had threatened the police inspector, thereby establishing the charges against him. Consequently, a second show-cause notice was issued on April 9, 2012, enclosing the inquiry report. Under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, Gangadhar was compulsorily retired on Oct 1, 2012.Challenging the decision, Gangadhar approached the high court, and a single bench dismissed his petition on Feb 25, 2025. He then filed a writ appeal, asserting that the single bench did not examine his explanation, which he said should have been accepted.However, the court rejected this contention for several reasons, including that the evidence showed that Gangadhar had threatened and abused cops during a phone call of 10-15 minutes on Aug 20, 2007. The bench found no infirmity with either the procedure adopted or the punishment imposed. It observed that the punishment imposed pursuant to a domestic inquiry cannot be interfered with unless it is established that the inquiry/punishment was contrary to the law, and the procedure adopted wasn’t in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Other reasons to intervene include “excessively disproportionate” punishment and the disciplinary proceedings being “vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations,” the court said, dismissing Gangadhar’s writ appeal.
