Ruling Establishes Suspension as the Absolute Prerogative Right of Judicial Administration Amid Serious Allegations of Misconduct and Alleged Destruction of Premises Evidence
GANGTOK, SIKKIM — The High Court of Sikkim has formally declined to interfere with the administrative suspension of a subordinate judicial officer accused of serious dereliction of duty. The officer, identified as Bebika Chettri, allegedly abdicated her essential courtroom functions by permitting her Peshkar (court clerk) and a public prosecutor to conduct open-court evidentiary proceedings independently while she remained in her private chambers. The Bench, presided over by Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, explicitly clarified that an employer retains an inherent prerogative right to suspend personnel to ensure the integrity of an ongoing disciplinary investigation.
The controversy emerged following a formal administrative inquiry during which more than ten separate witnesses—comprising local practicing advocates and institutional court staff—offered statements corroborating the allegations against the judicial officer. The High Court Registry defended the interim suspension by submitting preliminary evidence within a secured, sealed cover. Senior counsel appearing for the administration argued forcefully that the temporary removal of the judge was vital to protect the integrity of the process. The administration highlighted the distinct risk of witness intimidation, noting that local advocates might feel severe apprehension about testifying truthfully if the officer were reinstated to her station prior to the conclusion of the fact-finding process.
Adding gravity to the administrative deadlock, the Registry brought to the court’s attention a highly irregular and suspicious event involving the erasure of security footage from the court’s closed-circuit television (CCTV) system. Records indicated that the petitioner had uniquely accessed the judicial facility on a Sunday immediately following the execution of her June 13 suspension order. While the petitioner pleaded complete innocence and strenuously denied any involvement in the destruction of the technological evidence, the bench took cognisance of the timing as a valid ground for administrative caution.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenged the suspension as being void ab initio, maintaining that the high court administration had violated regulatory guidelines issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice. The defense contended that disciplinary actions targeting sitting judicial officers must strictly originate from verified third-party complaints supported by sworn affidavits, rather than internal observations. The High Court flatly rejected this highly technical defense, underscoring that the judiciary holds independent plenary powers to act upon internal administrative intelligence concerning officer conduct without waiting for an external source.
To balance the demands of natural justice against public accountability, the High Court imposed an absolute three-month deadline on the administration to finalize the disciplinary inquiry, contingent on the petitioner's cooperation. Should the High Court Registry fail to conclude its proceedings within this strict window, the suspension will lapse, and the officer will be entitled to immediate reinstatement. The Bench also ordered that all relevant documentation and underlying statements must be fully disclosed to the petitioner the moment a formal charge sheet is framed, ensuring her right to an absolute defense.
Discription: The Sikkim High Court has officially refused to overturn the administrative suspension of a subordinate judicial officer, Bebika Chettri. The officer is accused of serious misconduct and dereliction of duty after allegedly abdicating her courtroom responsibilities by allowing her court clerk (Peshkar) and a public prosecutor to independently record evidence during open court sessions while she remained in her private chambers.
Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque ruled that suspension is an employer's prerogative right. The court emphasized that the temporary removal is legally justified to prevent potential witness intimidation and to protect the integrity of the ongoing internal inquiry. To ensure a fair trial, the High Court has ordered the administration to wrap up the entire disciplinary proceedings within a strict three-month deadline.