Suspension is a prerogative right of the employer to ensure an unbiased inquiry; judicial interference is permissible only if the suspension order is ex facie illegal. Documents supporting allegations must be provided at the charge memo stage, not the suspension stage.

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

(A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J.)

This writ petition is filed by a Judicial Officer of the Sikkim Superior Judicial Service, challenging the suspension order.

2. The Chief Justice, in concurrence with the Judge-In-Charge (formed the Full-Court of the Court as there were no other judges), decided to suspend the Officer on an allegation that the Petitioner remained away from the Court while recording evidence and the evidence was permitted to be recorded by the ‘Peshkar’ in open Court.

3. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. As stated in the above show cause notice dated 18.06.2026, the Petitioner abdicated the judicial responsibilities by permitting the recording of evidence by the ‘Peshkar’ and others including Public Prosecutor in open Court and by remaining in the chambers, away from the proceedings.

4. The Petitioner has refuted this allegation, hence, pleaded total innocence to the allegations against her.

5. Challenging the suspension order, the Petitioner approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court directed the Petitioner to approach the High Court on the judicial side. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued the matter on behalf of the Petitioner and submits that the suspension order is void ab initio and not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice, Government of India as per the Annexure – ‘P1’. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the High Court shall not entertain any complaints against a Judicial Officer unless it is accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material to substantiate the allegation. Therefore, it is submitted that without there being any complaint and any materials, the Petitioner could not have been proceeded for disciplinary action.

6. It is further submitted that the impugned action is ex facie illegal and contrary to Article 235 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the High Court Administration failed to provide any material to substantiate the allegation and there was no material relied for the subjective satisfaction to order suspension.

7. On hearing the submissions, this Court passed the following order yesterday, i.e. on 09.07.2026:-

“Read order dated 08.07.2026.

The affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner. However, nothing has been stated as to how she came into possession of Annexure – ‘P 11’.

It is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate upon this issue. If the Respondents are of the view that the Petitioner has illegally obtained the said document from the Registry, it is open to the Respondent to pursue such remedy against the Petitioner in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that no direction is required to be passed on the judicial side.

The arguments of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that absolutely no material has been relied upon by the High Court of Sikkim to suspend the Petitioner from service.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court of Sikkim submits that all the materials will be provided to the Petitioner at the time of framing of charges.

However, to ascertain the veracity of the said allegation, it is appropriate for the High Court Registry to produce the materials collected by tomorrow.

Stand over to 10th July, 2026.”

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent produced the materials in a sealed cover. Learned Senior Counsel, submits that the col