The Supreme Court on Monday disapproved the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Uttarakhand judicial officer Deepali Sharma over allegations that she had kept a minor girl as a domestic help and subjected her to physical abuse, holding that the case would have to be examined primarily from the standpoint of legality of initiation of the inquiry rather than factual appreciation undertaken by the High Court.

The matter arose from a challenge filed by the High Court of Uttarakhand against a Division Bench judgment that had exonerated the Judge and set aside the departmental proceedings initiated against her while also reinstating her into service. The allegations stemmed from claims that a 17-year-old girl residing with the judicial officer had been rescued with multiple injuries on her body.

Appearing for the High Court, senior advocate Madhavi Divan argued that the material collected during the departmental inquiry disclosed a serious case of misconduct. Referring to the medical examination report and witness statements, Ms Divan submitted that the victim had sustained 20 injuries and it was “unnatural that a child of this age has so many injuries on her.”

She further contended that the girl had remained with the judicial officer for nearly two-and-a-half years and had not attended school during that period. “So what else was she being kept there for but to perform her domestic chores,” she argued before the Bench.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the legality of the disciplinary process itself, particularly the absence of any written approval from the then Chief Justice authorising the initiation of proceedings against the judicial officer. The Bench orally observed:

“The question would be who initiated the inquiry? That goes to the root of the matter.”

The Court also remarked that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer could not ordinarily be commenced without approval of the Chief Justice and expressed concern over allegations that the Registrar General may have proceeded merely on the basis of alleged telephonic instructions.

The Court has disapproved the disciplinary action initiated against the Uttarakhand judicial officer. While clarifying that it was not endorsing the factual findings recorded by the High Court, the Bench stated that its interference was based on a “question of law” concerning procedural competence and not on the merits of the allegations. The Court nevertheless remarked that if such allegations were proved in a properly conducted departmental inquiry, they would unquestionably amount to serious misconduct.

During the hearing, Counsel for the respondent Judge informed the Court that although she had been reinstated pursuant to the High Court judgment, she had not been granted back wages or promotion and had suffered “serious media defamation.” The Bench, however, declined to examine those grievances in the present proceedings.