XXX Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A deeply anguished Judge of the Allahabad High Court[Petitioner] has petitioned this Court for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by invoking his Fundamental Right to constitutional remedy guaranteed by Article 32 thereof.

(2.) Lest any observation made by us denies the petitioner a level playing field in any future proceedings that he might face, we would tread the path cautiously and refer to, very briefly, only the bare facts leading to presentation of this writ petition as well as deal with only such of the several contentions, as urged, to the extent the same are absolutely necessary for our decision.

(3.) Petitioner finds himself in an unsavoury situation. While the Petitioner was a Judge of the Delhi High Court, there was an incident of fire at a store-room in the bungalow premises allotted to him. On the date of the incident, the Petitioner was away from home. In the process of dousing the fire, certain burnt currency notes were discovered in the store-room. Such discovery gave rise to suspicion that the Petitioner may not have followed the universally accepted values of judicial life including those included in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life dtd. 31/10/1997; consequently, his conduct fell for scrutiny. Without wasting time, the "In-house Procedure" devised by the Supreme Court in its Full Court meeting dtd. 15/12/1999[PROCEDURE] was set in motion. The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court[CJ, DHC] vide letter dtd. 21/3/2025 sought a response from the Petitioner. In his response dtd. 22/3/2025, the Petitioner's defence, inter alia, was that no cash was ever placed in the store-room by him or his family members and he strongly denounced the suggestion that the cash belonged to him or his family members. Petitioner also stated that the same must have been planted in the store-room to frame him. However, the Petitioner neither denied the incident of fire nor discovery of the burnt currency notes. Upon receipt of the response, the same was considered. Inter alia, on 22/3/2025, a three-member Committee[COMMITTEE] was constituted by the Chief Justice of India[CJI]. A press release of even date named the members of the COMMITTEE, and also disclosed that the CJ, DHC was asked not to assign judicial work to the Petitioner. At or about the same time, presumably on the orders of the CJI, certain documents/photographs/video footage linked to the fire incident and discovery of currency notes had been placed in the public domain. On 24/3/2025, the Collegium of the Supreme Court recommended the Petitioner's repatriation to his parent High Court. Immediately thereafter, the COMMITTEE set out to accomplish the task assigned to it. The fire ravaged storeroom was inspected. Versions of several witnesses having some knowledge of and/or relation with the incident of fire/discovery of burnt currency notes were recorded by the COMMITTEE. Petitioner was furnished the versions of the witnesses. Thereafter, he was afforded an opportunity to state his case. An inquiry report[REPORT] dtd. 3/5/2025 of the COMMITTEE followed. On the basis of appreciation of the materials collected in course of the inquiry, the COMMITTEE recorded in the REPORT of having found sufficient substance in the allegations raised in the letter dtd. 22/3/2025 of the CJI. It was recorded by the COMMITTEE that misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of the Petitioner from his office. Vide letter dated