IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION No.52613/2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI K.M. GANGADHAR AGED 61 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ GUDDAIAH PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF 26, 1ST FLOOR, FLAT NO.102, WEST PARK APARTMENT, 14TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-56055. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (ADMIN-I), LAW, JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560001. 2 2. THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560001. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1 SRI S SUSHEELA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SOMANATHA H., ADV. FOR R2) ++++ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 01.10.2012 PASSED BY THE R1 ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE R2 AND THEREBY DIRECT THE GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS INCLUDING THE PROMOTION AT APPROPRIATE TIME AND THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AS IF THE PETITIONER WAS ON SERVICE. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07/01/2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT 3 CAV ORDER Petitioner, a compulsorily retired Senior Civil Judge is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and correctness of the Government Order bearing No.LAW 195 LAC 2012, Bangalore dated 01.10.2012 (Annexure-A), imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, with a prayer to grant all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined judicial service as Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) in February 1995 and further he was promoted as Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) in the year 2005. While he was working as Civil Judge, (Sr.Dvn), XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, based on the complaint of one Dr.B.Indumathi dated 23.06.2008 and 22.09.2008, departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by issuing articles of charges dated 27.04.2011. The sum and substance of the charge was 4 that the petitioner interfered with the due process of investigation of Police Inspector, Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru into the complaint lodged by the complainant Smt.Dr.B.Indumathi against Smt.Anasuya (Anasuyamma), thereby committed misconduct and committed an act of unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. The petitioner filed his written statement of defence denying the charge as false allegation. In his reply, the petitioner stated that he had requested the Nandini Layout Police not to harass his sister as the suit is pending. Not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, Enquiry Officer – Registrar (Vigilance) was appointed as Enquiring Authority and proceeded to conduct the proceedings. 3. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 i.e., complainant Dr.B.Indumathi and PW2 Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah, Police Inspector and marked Ex.P1 5 to Ex.P7. The petitioner – Delinquent Official examined himself as DW1 apart from examining other four witnesses and marked documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D8. The Enquiry Authority based on the material on record, held that the charge of threatening the Police Inspector - PW2 is proved. The petitioner was issued with second show cause notice dated 09.04.2012 enclosing the report of the Enquiry Authority. The petitioner submitted his reply on 09.05.2012. Thereafter, Annexure-A, order dated 01.10.2012 was passed imposing penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Rule 8(vi) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). 4. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.M.R.Rajagopal for Sri.H.N.Basavaraju learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Prathibha.R.K., for 6 respondent No.1 and learned senior counsel Smt.S.Susheela for Sri.Somanatha.H., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment of compulsory retirement based on the findings of the enquiry report are contrary to the material on record. Further, learned senior counsel would contend that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and he would submit that mere requesting the Nandini Layout Police not to harass his sister as a civil suit in O.S.No.8195/2006 is pending, would not amount to misconduct or unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. It is submitted that the charge as framed would not amount to any misconduct or dereliction of duty. In the said circumstances, learned senior counsel would submit that the initiation of enquiry 7 and further proceedings are vitiated as the petitioner has not abused and interfered with the investigation and the institution of enquiry itself is not proper. Learned senior counsel would submit that the dispute between the complainant Dr.B.Indumathi and sister of the petitioner i.e., Smt.Anasuya was pending in O.S.No.8195/2006 and as the persons belonging to Dr.B.Indumathi along with police were threatening Smt.Anasuya, the petitioner only requested the Nandini Layout Police not to harass his sister, as the suit is pending, which according him, would not amount to misconduct. Moreover, learned senior counsel would submit that subsequently, Dr.B.Indumathi – complainant submitted an application for withdrawing the complaint against the petitioner. 6. Learned senior counsel would further submit that in the absence of allegation of corruption or grave misconduct, the penalty of compulsory retirement ought 8 not to have been imposed. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that Smt.Anasuya had also filed complaint against the Police Inspector with regard to harassment meted out to her by the Police Inspector, but the said complaint is not taken note of. Learned senior counsel inviting attention of this Court to enquiry report submits that, the Enquiry Officer has failed to take notice of Ex.P5, letter withdrawing the complaint by Dr.B.Indumathi – the complainant and further learned senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. RAM SINGH, EX-CONSTABLE1, to contend that the allegation against the petitioner would not amount to gravest case of misconduct to impose punishment of compulsory retirement; and further learned senior counsel also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court 1 (1992) 4 SCC 54 9 in the case of TARLOCHAN DEV SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS2 to contend that the allegation would not amount to even abuse of power in the facts and circumstances. Hence, he submits that imposing punishment is wholly illegal and prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned senior counsel Smt.S.Susheela for Respondent No.2 submits that the charge against the petitioner is proved based on the material on record. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that a Judicial Officer shall have to maintain high degree of discipline and integrity. Even a slightest act of misbehavior or misconduct invites disciplinary action against such Judicial Officer. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner himself has admitted that he has called Nandini Layout Police to request not to harass his sister. It is submitted that 2 (2001) 6 SCC 260 10 calling the police station by a Judicial Officer itself would amount to misconduct or conduct of unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. Learned senior counsel referring to charge memo would submit that the charge against the petitioner was that on 20.08.2007 petitioner called PW2 Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah, Inspector of Nandini Layout Police Station over phone and threatened him and interfered with due process of investigation on a complaint lodged against Smt.Anasuya by Dr.B.Indumathi. It is submitted that the witnesses – complainant Dr.B.Indumathi, PW1 as well as PW2-H.T.Jayaprakash, Inspector of Police have adduced evidence to the effect that the petitioner had called PW2 and threatened him with regard to investigation of complaint of Smt.Dr.B.Indumathi against Smt.Anasuya. 8. Learned senior counsel would submit that in departmental proceedings, no strict rule of evidence would be applicable and charge could be proved on the 11 basis of preponderance of probabilities. Moreover, it is submitted that this Court would not examine the sufficiency of evidence and would not sit as an appellate authority. Learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS VS. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA3 to buttress her argument with regard to the scope of interference and under what circumstances the order of penalty could be interfered in a departmental proceedings. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the points which arise for consideration are: “a) Whether the allegation against the petitioner in calling PW2 Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah, Police Inspector of 3 (2021) 2 SCC 612 12 Nandini Layout Police Station would amount to misconduct? b) Whether the impugned order of penalty requires interference?” 10. Answer to the above points would be in the Affirmative and Negative respectively for the following reasons: The petitioner was working as Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) at the time of issuing articles of charge dated 27.04.2011. A Judicial Officer who discharges the divine function of dispensation of justice is required to maintain high degree of discipline and conduct. The confidence of the public and litigant would depend on the conduct and behavior of the Judicial Officer. 11. The dictionary meaning of ‘misconduct’ would be conduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence; errors of judgment; or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct. The conduct which is 13 blameworthy would be misconduct. A Judicial Officer if he conducts himself in a way inconsistent in a due and faithful discharge of his duty constitute misconduct. 12. In the case on hand, the charge against the petitioner in terms of articles of charge dated 27.04.2011 reads as follows: “CHARGE: That one Dr.Indumathi, W/o B.R.Maruthi, No.374, 13th Main, RMV Extension. Bangalore-560 080 has sent a complaint dated 23.06.08 against you, alleging that while you were working as XIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, during the period from 10.08.04 to 25.05.08, by misusing of your official position as Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate interfered with the due process of investigation by the jurisdictional police in a complaint lodged by the complainant against one Smt.Anasuya; that in her additional complaint dated 22.09.08, the complainant Dr.Indumathi, W/o B.R.Maruthi, furnished documents inter-alia, copy of the report of Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah. Police Inspector, Nandini Layout Police Station, Bangalore, dated 04.11.07 addressed to Sri.M.D.Singh, Vigilance Director 14 (Police) Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore; that the report dated 04.11.07 of Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah, Police Inspector, Nandini Layout Police Station, Bangalore, discloses that you have abused Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah, over phone for about 10-15 minutes on 20.08.07 at about 1.30 p.m. and threatened him that you will see that a case is registered against him in the Lokayukta through your sister Anasuya; that your say dated 30.08.08 and 22.11.08 are contradictory to each other; that while in your say dated 30.08.08, you have stated of having not threatened the police and you are no way concerned with the dispute raised by the complainant, but in your say dated 22.11.08, you have admitted of having informed Nandini Layout Police Station not to call Anasuya (Anasuyakka) often to the Police Station, as she is related to you and a civil case O.S.No.8195/06 is pending before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. That you have interfered with the due investigation by Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah, Police Inspector, Nandini Layout Police Station, Bangalore, into the complaint lodged by the 15 complainant against Smt.Anasuya (Anasuyamma).” 13. The charge against the petitioner is that, while he was working as XIII Additional City Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore on 20.08.2007, called PW2 – Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah, Inspector of Police, Nandini Layout Police Station, abused him over phone and threatened him that a case would be registered against him in the Lokayuktha through his sister Anasuya. In his reply dated 22.11.2008 as well as written defence dated 23.05.2011, petitioner admitted of having called Nandini layout Police Station and requesting not to harass his sister as civil suit is pending between complainant Dr.B.Indumathi and his sister Smt.Anasuya. 14. The complainant Dr.B.Indumathi is examined as PW1 before the Enquiry Authority and she has categorically stated that CW2 was the Police Inspector of 16 Nandini Layout Police Station. That the DJO i.e., petitioner came to the disputed property for mediation. Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah, Inspector of Police, Nandini Layout is examined before the Enquiry Authority as PW2. PW2 Sri.H.T.Jayaramaiah has categorically stated that the petitioner – DJO had called him and attempted to prevent him from discharging his duties. In the cross- examination, nothing contrary is elicited by the petitioner. 15. There is no irregularity in conduct of the enquiry or it is the case of the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice during the course of the enquiry. It is settled position of law that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an Appellate Authority and would not go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence. It would only examine as to whether there is some evidence to prove the charge. In the instant case, the 17 evidence on record is more than sufficient to prove the charge against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner himself admitted that he had called the Nandini Layout Police Station to request not to harass his sister Smt.Anasuya. It is an admitted fact that Dr.B.Indumathi had filed complaint against Smt.Anasuya and the police had undertaken investigation. During the course of investigation, it would not for the petitioner who is a Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) to call the police for whatsoever reason. Mere calling the police when a matter is under investigation would definitely amount to misconduct or unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA (supra) has laid down the principles and the circumstances under which the Courts/Tribunal could interfere in a proceeding held against the delinquent official in a departmental 18 proceedings. Relevant paragraphs 24, 25 and 28 reads as follows: “24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 19 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 20 17. The decision on which learned senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance would not assist the petitioner in any way. In the decision in RAM SINGH, EX-CONSTABLE (supra) it is held that punishment of dismissal could be imposed for gravest act of misconduct. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that misconduct alleged against the petitioner is not gravest misconduct to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. 18. As stated above, a slightest misconduct by a Judicial Officer would invite disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed in the instant case is proportionate to the nature and gravity of proved charge. By imposing punishment of compulsory retirement, the petitioner is sent out of Judicial service with all pensionary benefits. The petitioner is not 21 deprived of his pension or pensionary benefits. As such, it cannot be said that the punishment is too harsh. 19. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC. CT:bms