The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary proceedings initiated based on an anonymous complaint must comply with the prescribed procedure under the relevant rules and guidelines, and any violation of the prescribed procedure renders the entire proceeding defective and subject to being quashed.

JUDGMENT :

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing the suspension order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the respondent, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension as well as the Charge-sheet No.4399/11-I/UHC/VIG./2023-24 dated 10.08.2023, along with entire disciplinary proceedings initiated and pending against the petitioner pursuant to an anonymous and undated complaint not supported by a duly sworn affidavit of the complainant.

2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details are that the petitioner was posted during the relevant period as District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli, an undated, anonymous complaint, not supported by any affidavit allegedly made by the District Bar Association, Gopeshwar at Chamoli was received by the High Court through registered post on 22.05.2023. The said complaint was sent to the Registrar (Vigilance), a Sitting Judge of the High Court (by name) and subsequently, to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand (by name). The Hon’ble Judge of the High Court marked the said complaint to the Registrar General on 22.05.2023. The complaint which was received by the Registrar (Vigilance) was registered in the “Complaint Register for Judicial Officers” on 22.05.2023 at Serial No.11. The Registrar (Vigilance) after preparing a note on 23.05.2023 placed the complaint along with said note before Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Chief Justice directed Registrar General/Registrar (Vigilance) “to forthwith gather material evidence to identify the Court Room i.e. whether the same is of D.J. Chamoli, and if so, particulars of the case, in which the evidence is seen recording in the video clippings, this exercise should be done discreetly as far as possible”, and further directed the matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice with the report within 10 days.

3. The complaint, which was sent and received by the High Court was an unsigned complaint from District Bar Association Chamoli, in which a pen drive was also annexed and the substance of the complaint was that the evidence was being recorded by the petitioner-District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli against the procedure, in the absence of the Presiding Officer, and it was alleged that it was the routine way of recording the evidence in the court of the petitioner. The envelope in which the complaint was sent contained the name of one Hem Vashist, Advocate, Court Compound, Chamoli, Mobile No.9812491887, as sender.

4. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, purportedly enquiry was conducted and after preliminary enquiry, his explanation was called vide show cause notice dated 11.07.2023, wherein the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the disciplinary action be not taken against him for violating the direction issued by the High Court by order dated 03.10.2012 for recording the evidence of witness by Judicial Officers and not by Peshkar.

5. The petitioner submitted his explanation vide Letter No.811 Gopeshwar dated 20.07.2023 (annexure-9 to the writ petition). In the explanation, he stated that as the complaint was anonymous and without affidavit, the High Court should not take cognizance of such a complaint. The Officer further stated that the video clippings nowhere disclosed its source and he further stated as to where is the original clipping and what is the authenticity of the second copy, and he requested not to take notice of such video clippings, source of which was not known and genuineness of which was doubtful. Apart from questioning the video clippings, it was also submitted on the basis of the medical report that since the petitioner had stone in his Kidney, he has to go for urination and there was a possibility that the petitioner might have rose from the court for that purpose but at that time, no evidence was recorded and he used to dir