The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer would be rendered constitutionally invalid if they are not authorised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or a committee constituted by him [Uttarakhand High Court v. Deepali Sharma].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while upholding the Uttarakhand High Court's decision to reinstate a civil judge who was earlier dismissed on allegations that she physically abused a minor girl employed as a domestic help.

The Court today ruled that even the Registrar General of a High Court has no authority to suo motu initiate disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers and that authorisation from the Chief Justice or his designate is a must.

"The power under Article 235 of the Constitution, insofar as disciplinary control over judicial officers is concerned, has been expressly vested in the High Court and the High Court collectively, which necessarily shall comprise the Hon'ble Chief Justice and his companion judges. Unless the disciplinary action is approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court, or by a committee of judges constituted by him and delegated for all intents and purposes, such proceedings cannot be validly initiated. The Registrar General of the High Court has absolutely no authority, either in terms of the Constitution or the statutory rules governing the service conditions of judicial officers, to suo motu initiate disciplinary action against judicial officers," it held.

The Bench found that such procedures were not followed properly in the present case, rendering the disciplinary proceedings against the civil judge invalid from the start.

"What we find is that the inquiry proceedings in the present case, at the very inception, suffer from a jurisdictional infirmity which goes to the root of the matter ... The very foundation of the disciplinary action against the (judicial officer) was non-existent," the Court held.

The Bench said that it was also inclined not to interfere with the civil judge's reinstatement, since she had also made out a case that she had been subjected to harassment by some senior judicial officers.

The matter was tied to a complaint sent to the Uttarakhand High Court in 2020, wherein a civil judge was accused of physically and emotionally abusing a 17-year-old girl domestic help at her residence. Following an inquiry, the judge was terminated from service.

However, in January this year, the Uttarakhand High Court expressed doubts over whether the allegations against the judge stood sufficiently proved to warrant her dismissal.

The High Court said that the case against Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deepali Sharma was not only a case of “no evidence” but a case of “carefully crafted edifice without a foundation."

“It could also be termed as a mountain made out of a molehill,” the Bench said in a verdict dated January 6.

The Court censured the judicial officers who were involved in the inquiry against Sharma as well, stating that the manner and method in which they had gone about in demonstrating the charges was shocking. 

Further, it questioned the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated as well. Notably, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the High Court's Registrar General after an anonymous complaint was sent to the Uttarakhand High Court's email account.

The Registrar General claimed that he had telephonically been asked by the then-Chief Justice of the High Court to inquire into the matter and issue an order of suspension.

However, in its January judgment, the High Court questioned why the complaint and the material cited against the accused judge were not placed before the Chief Justice.

“It is apparent that electronic mode of communication has been claimed to have been predominantly used, even to the extent of getting the concurrence of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice for issuing an order of suspension. If that be so, it was imperative that proof of the same ought to have been placed, more so, when the petitioner was questioning the authenticity of the orders claimed to have been passed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice,” it added.

Among other lapses, the High Court also said that it was shocked at the manner in which the civil judge’s residence was raided with a huge police force, along with two videographers.

"The manner and method raises questions and leaves us wondering as to whether it is a case of over-kill or motivated?" it had remarked.

It went on to order Sharma's reinstatement to service, adding that she shall be deemed to have continued in service from the date of removal from service.

The High Court's administrative side had challenged this verdict before the Supreme Court, which has dismissed the appeal today.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan represented the Uttarakhand High Court (administrative side).

Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur appeared for judge Deepali Sharma.

[Live Coverage]