Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri K.M. Gangadhar, a judicial officer who joined as a Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) in February 1995 and was promoted to Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) in 2005, was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by an order dated 01.10.2012. This penalty was based on a complaint received from Dr. B. Indumathi while the appellant was functioning as XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. The appellant challenged the penalty order by filing a writ petition (W.P. No. 52613/2016) before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 25.02.2025. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, along with an application (I.A. No. 1/2025) seeking condonation of a two-day delay in filing the appeal. The Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice C M Joshi, condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. The Court examined the impugned order and the grounds raised by the appellant. The appellant argued that the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate and that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated. However, the Court found no merit in these contentions. The Division Bench noted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and that the penalty was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. The Court held that the learned Single Judge had correctly dismissed the writ petition and that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment was delivered orally by the Chief Justice.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Compulsory Retirement - Penalty - The appellant, a Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement based on a complaint alleging misconduct. The Division Bench held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and the penalty was proportionate to the misconduct. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. (Paras 1-5)
B) Civil Procedure - Delay Condonation - I.A. No. 1/2025 - The delay of two days in filing the appeal was condoned for the reasons stated in the application. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of compulsory retirement imposed on the appellant, a judicial officer, was sustainable in law and whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the same.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 52613/2016 is upheld. The delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Law Points
- Compulsory retirement
- disciplinary proceedings
- judicial officer
- misconduct
- penalty
- writ appeal
- delay condonation
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (08) 4
WA No. 600 of 2025 (S-RES)
Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, C M Joshi, J.
Sri Rajashekar S. for appellant; Sri K.S. Harish, Government Advocate for R-1; Sri Suhas G. for R-2
The State of Karnataka and The High Court of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging order of compulsory retirement imposed on a judicial officer.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 52613/2016 and to allow the writ petition, thereby quashing the penalty of compulsory retirement.
Filing Reason
The appellant was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by order dated 01.10.2012 based on a complaint of misconduct. He challenged this penalty by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed. Hence, the appeal.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition (W.P. No. 52613/2016) on 25.02.2025.
Issues
Whether the order of compulsory retirement imposed on the appellant was sustainable in law.
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate and that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated.
The respondents supported the impugned order and the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were conducted in accordance with law, and the penalty of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the misconduct. There was no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
Judgment Excerpts
For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of two (2) days in filing the appeal, is condoned.
The appellant had filed the said writ petition impugning an order dated 01.10.2012, whereby the appellant was visited with the penalty of compulsory retirement.
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.), XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, a complaint was received from one Dr. B. Indumathi, alleging that the appellant...
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Procedural History
The appellant, a judicial officer, was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 01.10.2012. He challenged this by filing W.P. No. 52613/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 25.02.2025. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal (WA No. 600/2025) along with an application for condonation of delay of two days. The Division Bench condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal on merits on 19.08.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
