The Sikkim High Court has rejected a writ petition filed by a Judicial Officer of Sikkim Superior Judicial Service challenging her suspension on allegations that she stayed away from court while letting her Peshkar (clerk) record evidence in open court.

The bench of Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque observed that the material against the petitioner was being collected, and there is an apprehension that she might interfere with the ongoing inquiry.

"Suspension is a prerogative right of the employer. If the employer apprehends that a suspended employee, if allowed to remain in office, there is a likelihood of interference with the ongoing inquiry, the employer is legally justified in keeping the Officer under the suspension. Furthermore, before the charge memo is issued, the employer might be collecting the materials. In that stage, if such an Officer is allowed to be reinstated, it may affect the ongoing investigation".

However, the bench noted that if the petitioner cooperates with the inquiry and it does not conclude within 3 months, she would be reinstated.

A writ petition was filed by a Judicial Officer of Sikki, Superior Judicial Service, challenging her suspension order. She was suspended on allegations that she remained away from court while the Peshkar was permitted to record the evidence in open court.

She was issued a show cause notice, which stated that she had abdicated her judicial responsibilities, which she refused. Challenging her suspension order, she approached the Supreme Court, which directed her to approach the High Court.

The counsel appearing for the judicial officer argued that the suspension order was void ab initio and not per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice. It was argued that the High Court cannot entertain any complaints against a judicial officer unless it is accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable material to support the allegations.

The counsel for the respondent argued that the collection of materials was still in process and that they had recorded statements from Advocates and other staff members. The counsel argued that if the officer is allowed to be reinstated, there is a possibility of tampering with evidence. The counsel also pointed out an instance of CCTV footage being erased.

Emphasizing that suspension is "a prerogative right of the employer", the court elucidated that an employer is legally justified in keeping the delinquent officer under suspension if it apprehends that the said officer would interfere in the inquiry.

Further, the bench noted that reinstating the officer at this stage, while material is being collected, might affect the ongoing investigation. The bench held

"At what stage an employee under suspension can be reinstated is a matter of course, to be examined by the employer themselves. The Court should interfere in the suspension matter only when there is ex facie illegality in ordering suspension".

Additionally, the bench noted that after the suspension of the petitioner, many people have come forward to depose against the petitioner by stating that she remained away from court and had permitted the Peshkar to record evidence. The court emphasized that such allegations form serious misconduct and warrant a major penalty.

Case Title: B v High Court of Sikkim, W.P. (C) No. 37 of 2026

For Petitioner: Advocates Abhinav Kant Jha, Preeti Basnett, Anish Byahut, Ishan Gurung, Chodenla Tamang and Yougen Sangpo Sherpa

For Respondent: Senior Advocate N. Rai with Advocates Kazi Sangay Thupden, Prerana Rai, Srijana Bagdas and Sogyal Topden Norbu Bhutia

Click here to read/download the Order