-
by sayum
20 February 2026 10:40 AM
Punishment imposed after domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with unless vitiated by law, natural justice, or gross disproportionality…. The power of judicial office does not extend to shielding one’s kin from the law”—High Court condemns judge's interference in police investigation
Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a retired judicial officer challenging the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon him. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi strongly reiterated that courts will not interfere in disciplinary punishment arising out of a valid domestic enquiry unless it is found to be illegal, mala fide, or shockingly disproportionate.
The case is significant for affirming the high ethical bar expected of members of the judiciary, especially in their interactions with law enforcement. The Court found that the appellant, while holding the office of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, had abused his position to intimidate police officials investigating a complaint against his sister.
“The appellant threatened police officials over a phone call lasting 10 to 15 minutes... such conduct is unbecoming of a judicial officer.”
The misconduct came to light when Dr. B. Indumathi lodged a complaint alleging that Sri K.M. Gangadhar was obstructing the police from calling her adversary Smt. Anasuya (the appellant's sister) for investigation. The charge: using judicial status to influence and intimidate the police.
A domestic enquiry was initiated following Articles of Charges issued on 27 April 2011, and the Registrar (Vigilance) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Evidence was recorded from the complainant and the concerned Police Inspector, Sri H.T. Jayaramaiah, while the appellant deposed as DW-1. Based on this evidence, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the appellant had indeed threatened and abused police personnel over the phone.
Rejecting the appellant's explanation that he had merely told the police “not to harass his sister”, the Court accepted the findings that the judge had overstepped legal boundaries and engaged in direct intimidation.
“A judge must be seen as a protector of law, not its personal manipulator.”
The High Court observed: “The punishment imposed pursuant to domestic enquiry, cannot be interfered with, unless it is established that the enquiry or the punishment is contrary to law; or that the procedure adopted is not in conformity with the principles of natural justice; or that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations; or that the finding of misconduct is perverse and unreasonable; or that the punishment imposed is excessively disproportionate.”
The Court made it clear that none of these exceptions were met. The enquiry was conducted properly, evidence was duly examined, and the charges were proven.
“Judicial discipline and integrity are not optional. A judge who abuses power tarnishes the very seat he occupies.”
Counsel for the appellant had contended that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the appellant’s explanation. The Division Bench, however, found no infirmity in either the disciplinary proceedings or the judicial reasoning adopted by the Single Judge.
“We find no infirmity with either the procedure adopted nor find that the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate.”
Notably, the disciplinary authority had acted under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement through an order dated 01.10.2012, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Single Judge and then in appeal.
“Judicial officers hold the balance of justice—they cannot be allowed to wield that balance for private ends.”
With these stern words, the High Court concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the penalty imposed, and thus the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Date of Decision: 19 August 2025
