Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Department Proceedings Against Former Nagaland Judge Over Missing Bail Funds: New Delhi – India’s Supreme Court has refused to intervene in ongoing departmental proceedings against a former Principal District and Sessions Judge from Dimapur, Nagaland. The judge faces allegations of misappropriating ₹14 lakh in cash surety deposits.
On Friday, a vacation bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh stated that the Apex Court would not interfere in such disciplinary matters. The former judicial officer, Inalo Zhimomi, had approached the Supreme Court seeking relief in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the High Court, despite having already secured anticipatory bail in the related criminal case.
Allegations and Background
The core of the matter revolves around an FIR registered against Judge Zhimomi. This complaint, lodged following directions from the Gauhati High Court, alleges that ₹14.35 lakh in bail amounts, connected to 28 criminal cases, was collected by the judge but never deposited into the official treasury. The FIR was based on a letter from the current Principal District Judge of Dimapur.
The charges against Zhimomi are registered under Sections 316(4)/(5) (criminal breach of trust), 337 (forgery of court record), and 3(5) (criminal conspiracy) of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Judge Zhimomi’s Defense and Prior Actions
Zhimomi has challenged these allegations. He asserts that he had, as early as 2013, raised systemic concerns regarding cash surety procedures within the judicial system. According to a writ petition he has pending before the Gauhati High Court, while serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kohima, he had written to the Protocol Judge of the High Court. In that communication, he highlighted irregular practices concerning the handling of bail bond amounts.
Following his tenure as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Zhimomi was posted as District and Sessions Judge at Mon. It was there that he was suspended and subsequently issued a show-cause notice under the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. On March 25, he was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 20(2) of the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006.
Zhimomi argues that the disciplinary process initiated against him violates principles of natural justice and precedents set by the Supreme Court. During the pendency of his writ petition, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Registrar (Vigilance). This appointment prompted Zhimomi to raise further procedural objections, questioning the legality of conducting a disciplinary inquiry after an officer has been compulsorily retired.
It is noteworthy that while the Gauhati High Court had initially rejected Zhimomi’s plea for anticipatory bail on May 29, the Supreme Court subsequently granted him anticipatory bail on June 17 in the criminal case.
Supreme Court’s Stance
During the recent hearing before the Supreme Court, Zhimomi’s counsel attempted to highlight the urgency of the impending disciplinary proceedings, scheduled for the very next day. However, the bench made it clear it would not interfere with the High Court’s decision to proceed with the departmental action.
While directing the former judicial officer to “face the disciplinary proceedings and come out clean,” the Apex Court, however, granted him the liberty to approach the High Court for any further relief regarding these proceedings. This suggests that the Supreme Court prefers the High Court to handle the initial stages of disciplinary matters concerning judicial officers under its administrative control.
The case underscores the rigorous accountability mechanisms in place for judicial officers and the ongoing legal battles that can arise even after retirement, particularly when allegations of financial irregularities are involved.
