Registrar General of HC can’t suo motu initiate disciplinary action: SC refuses to interfere with reinstatement of judicial officer
The court said “all other questions of law are kept open” and clarified that it is “disapproving the disciplinary action on…the question of law…and not on the facts as discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment”.
On Sharma’s appeal, the HC noted multiple lapses in the process followed — the original medical certificate was not available, it was not signed by the doctor who examined the girl. (Representational image/File) THE SUPREME Court on Monday refused to intervene with the reinstatement of an Uttarakhand judicial officer who was removed from service on charges that she tortured her minor domestic help while posted in Haridwar.
Dismissing an appeal filed by the High Court (on its administrative side) challenging the January 6, 2026 order of its Division Bench, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said: “We are not inclined to interfere with the operative part of the impugned judgment to the extent of setting aside the disciplinary action taken against the first respondent (judicial officer) and her consequential reinstatement in service.”
The court said “all other questions of law are kept open” and clarified that it is “disapproving the disciplinary action on…the question of law…and not on the facts as discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment”.
Deepali Sharma, a civil judge (Senior Division) in Haridwar, was terminated from service following an inquiry and departmental proceedings after an anonymous complaint in January 2018 alleged that she had been abusing a minor girl child physically, mentally and emotionally and had kept her as a domestic help in her house.
The complaint was forwarded to the District Judge, Haridwar, who visited the spot and submitted his report, further reinforcing the charges of physical abuse. The report said the minor girl was taken for medical examination, which revealed as many as 20 injuries on her body. Subsequently the civil judge was suspended and then dismissed.
On Sharma’s appeal, the HC noted multiple lapses in the process followed — the original medical certificate was not available, it was not signed by the doctor who examined the girl. The court said this “casts a shadow over the truthfulness of the allegations”.
Appearing for Sharma, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur told the SC bench that there was no sanction from the Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice for the launch of disciplinary proceedings.
The CJI too agreed that the “most crucial issue would be any order by competent authority to initiate disciplinary action”.
Sharma had also alleged a conspiracy by senior judicial officers against her. Senior Advocate Madhavi G Divan, who appeared for the High Court, said though there is no written order by the Chief Justice, the communications say the Registrar General of the High Court had informed that the approval from the Chief Justice has been taken by him telephonically.
The CJI said, “the Registrar General abused the power and he assumed the role of the CJ, because a judicial officer can’t be chargesheeted unless it is approved by the CJ of the High Court.”
Diwan said, “There is no written communication from the Chief Justice. However, to say the Registrar General could have acted to this extent entirely on his own is too far-fetched.”
The CJI said, “There has to be an order on file. This is a very serious issue. That amounts to abuse of power by the Registrar General. Under the constitutional scheme, can action be taken against a judicial officer without prior permission of the Chief Justice. Assuming no pre-trial approval, post-facto approval (should have been there).”
Diwan said there are resolutions of the full court of the High Court recommending the termination, but the SC bench was not impressed.
The SC said, “We have no reason to doubt that the power under Article 235 of the Constitution has been expressly vested in the High Court, which necessarily shall be comprising the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the judges. Unless the disciplinary action is approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the committee comprising judges constituted by him as his delegates, the purported disciplinary action for all…and propositions, shall be void ab initio (invalid from the outset).”
“The Registrar General of the High Court has absolutely no authority either in terms of the constitutional scheme or the statutory rules governing the service conditions of judicial officers to suo motu initiate disciplinary action against the judicial officer. He can only act for and on behalf of the Chief Justice and the judges of the High Court. Such a recourse having not been followed, we find that the very foundation of the disciplinary action against the respondent 1 (Sharma) is non est in law,” the court said.
“Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, especially when she from the very beginning has been making outcry that she was victim of harassment of the hands of some of the senior judicial officers, we are not inclined to interfere with the operative part of the impugned judgment to the extent of setting aside the disciplinary action taken against the first respondent and her consequential reinstatement in service.”
Share
