In Brief
A senior judicial officer was suspended following complaints and unexplained banking transactions. A disciplinary inquiry found him guilty, but a Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee later cleared him. The High Court's Full Court nevertheless rejected the Committee's findings and imposed compulsory retirement as a disciplinary penalty. The officer challenged this via Article 32. The Supreme Court held that without specific rules authorizing the Committee to act on behalf of the Full Court, the Committee's conclusions are not binding; the Full Court retains independent power to review the evidence and impose penalties. Given substantial deposits and withdrawals without adequate explanation, the Full Court was justified in imposing compulsory retirement. The petition was dismissed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.