Listen to this article:

A question now sits on the Lok Sabha Speaker’s desk. Should the inquiry committee that was examining the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma be directed to finish its work and submit its report? Or should the committee be allowed to lapse, on the assumption that Justice Varma’s resignation of April 9 has rendered its mandate infructuous? The answer turns on a reading of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the Act does not, in terms, decide it.

Last week’s Supreme Court order in Chandni Prateek Sharma v. High Court of Gujarat throws the question into sharper relief. Sharma, a Gujarat judicial officer, had been suspended on anonymous and signed complaints in February 2020. An inquiry held by the Principal District Judge, Amreli, after examining 21 witnesses, found seven of eight charges not proved. The Standing Committee of the Gujarat High Court rejected the report and directed a de novo inquiry. The bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe quashed the de novo order on April 21, holding that Rule 10 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 permits only a further inquiry, not a fresh one. Sharma stands reinstated.

Beneath the Rule 10 holding sits a paragraph of subsidiary interest. Sharma had tried to resign in April 2024, while the inquiry was on foot. Her resignation was refused under Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 2002. Rule 36(2) makes resignation conditional on acceptance, and its proviso authorises rejection on three grounds: outstanding dues, suspension, and a contemplated or pending departmental inquiry. Rule 36(5) presumes against the withdrawal of an effective........

© The Wire