Sikkim High Court upholds suspension of judge accused of letting court clerk record evidence

The High Court of Sikkim recently refused to interfere with the suspension of a judge accused of abdicating her duties by letting her Peshkar (court clerk) record evidence while she stayed in her chambers.

Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque observed that the allegations against the officer, if proven, would amount to serious misconduct warranting major penalty.

The Court noted that more than ten individuals, including lawyers and court staff, had already given statements against the officer.

“Suspension is a prerogative right of the employer,” the Chief Justice observed. “If the employer apprehends that a suspended employee, if allowed to remain in office, there is a likelihood of interference with the ongoing inquiry, the employer is legally justified in keeping the Officer under the suspension,” the Court stated.

The petitioner, Bebika Chettri, was placed under suspension on June 13. The action was taken by the Chief Justice in concurrence with the judge-in-charge, who together formed the full court due to a lack of other judges at the High Court.

According to a show-cause notice issued later, Chettri allegedly left the courtroom while evidence was being recorded in an open court session, leaving her clerk and the public prosecutor to manage the proceedings.

Defending the suspension, the High Court registry submitted preliminary evidence in a sealed cover. The Senior Counsel for the registry argued that reinstating the judge mid-investigation would intimidate local lawyers from testifying against her.

The registry also flagged a suspicious incident where CCTV footage from the court premises was erased, noting that Chettri had visited the court on a Sunday immediately following her suspension.

Chettri pleaded total innocence and argued that she had no role in erasing the CCTV footage.

Her counsel vehemently argued that the suspension was void ab initio and violated Ministry of Law & Justice guidelines. The defense contended that the High Court cannot act against a judicial officer without a formal complaint accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material.

The High Court rejected the judge's technical defense. It clarified that the High Court did not act on a third-party complaint but rather on internal administrative information regarding the officer's conduct.

The Bench also shot down the argument that all evidence must be handed over to the employee at the suspension stage itself.

The Court ruled that the petitioner will be entitled to all documents once a formal charge sheet is framed.

However, to balance the scales of justice, the Court set a strict clock for the High Court administration.

The Bench ordered that the entire disciplinary inquiry must be wrapped up within three months provided Chettri cooperates. If the administration fails to conclude the inquiry within this window, the officer must be reinstated.

With these directions, the Court disposed of the writ petition.

Advocates Abhinav Kant Jha, Preeti Basnett, Anish Byahut, Ishan Gurung, Chodenla Tamang, and Yougen Sangpo Sherpa appeared for the petitioner.

Senior Advocate N Rai along with advocates Kazi Sangay Thupden, Prerana Rai, Srijana Bagdas, and Sogyal Topden Norbu Bhutia appeared for the High Court administration.

[Read Judgment]