Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer Void If Not Authorised by Chief Justice, Supreme Court Holds

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi holds that the Registrar General cannot suo-motu initiate disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer without the Chief Justice's authority under Article 235.

The Supreme Court on 18 May 2026 dismissed an appeal filed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, upholding the reinstatement of judicial officer Deepali Sharma after finding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her were void from the outset. The Court found that the inquiry had been set in motion by the Registrar General of the High Court without any authorisation from the Chief Justice or a committee of judges constituted under Article 235 of the Constitution. Because the constitutional power over district court judges vests exclusively in the “High Court” — meaning the Chief Justice and companion judges — the entire disciplinary action was held to be non-est in law. The Court expressly declined to examine the merits of the charges or the High Court's factual findings, resting its decision entirely on this jurisdictional defect.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

Deepali Sharma was appointed as a judicial officer in Uttarakhand in 2008. A domestic inquiry was held against her on serious charges, including allegations that she had victimised a minor girl kept as domestic help who was rescued with over 20 injuries on her body. The inquiry found the charges proved, and she was removed from judicial service.

Sharma challenged her removal before the Uttarakhand High Court by way of a writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court — comprising the then Chief Justice and a Puisne Judge — allowed the writ petition by a detailed judgment dated 6 January 2026, exonerating her of the charges and directing her reinstatement. The High Court had already been complied with; Sharma was reinstated pursuant to that judgment.

The High Court of Uttarakhand then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging its own Division Bench's judgment. Leave was granted and the matter was heard as a civil appeal.

The Jurisdictional Defect That Decided the Case

Senior counsel Mrs. Madhavi Divan, appearing for the appellant High Court, pressed the merits of the departmental inquiry — the quality of evidence, the gravity of the charges, and the conduct attributed to Sharma. The Court acknowledged that if such allegations were proved in a departmental inquiry held in accordance with law, there could be no exception to the imposition of major punishment.

However, the Court identified a prior and more fundamental problem. The inquiry proceedings had been initiated at the instance of the Registrar General of the High Court. No material was placed on record to show that the Registrar General had obtained any order from the Chief Justice of the High Court, or from any disciplinary committee of judges constituted by the Chief Justice as his delegates. The Registrar General was not examined during the proceedings either.

The Court held that Article 235 of the Constitution vests control over district and subordinate courts — including disciplinary authority over judicial officers — expressly in the “High Court”. That expression, the Court said, necessarily means the Chief Justice and the companion judges. The Registrar General has no independent authority, whether under the constitutional scheme or the statutory rules governing judicial officers' service conditions, to initiate disciplinary action on his own motion. He can act only on behalf of the Chief Justice and the judges of the High Court.

Because that foundational requirement was absent, the Court held that the disciplinary action was void ab initio. The very foundation of the proceedings was “non-est in law.”

What the Court Declined to Decide

Having found the proceedings void on jurisdictional grounds, the Court said it was unnecessary to examine two further questions that had been argued before it.

The first was whether the evidence produced in the departmental inquiry was admissible and whether the findings of guilt were correct on the merits. The second was a significant question of law: whether the High Court, exercising its power of judicial review in a writ petition, could act as an appellate authority over findings recorded by an inquiry officer that had been approved by the Full Court. Both questions were left expressly open.

The Court also clarified that it was disapproving of the disciplinary action on the jurisdictional ground alone — not on the factual findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The High Court's reasoning on the facts was neither endorsed nor rejected.

Sharma's Position and the Court's Approach

The Court noted that Sharma had, from the very beginning of the proceedings, maintained that she was a victim of harassment at the hands of some senior judicial officers. The Court did not make any finding on that claim, but took it into account as part of the totality of circumstances when deciding not to interfere with her reinstatement.

Sharma had already been reinstated pursuant to the Uttarakhand High Court's January 2026 judgment. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal means that reinstatement stands.

Outcome

The civil appeal filed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital was dismissed. The disciplinary action taken against Deepali Sharma and her consequential removal from judicial service were set aside. Her reinstatement in service, already effected pursuant to the High Court's judgment, was confirmed. All other questions of law were kept open. The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order on 18 May 2026.