Bebika Chettri vs High Court of Sikkim
- Court
- High Court of Sikkim
2026:SHC:77
CNR: SKHC01 000115 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Civil Extra-Ordinary Jurisdiction)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, CHIEF JUSTICE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No. 37 of 2026
Mrs. Bebika Chettri,
W/o Rojan Rai,
R/o Baluwakhani, Gangtok,
Sikkim ... Petitioner
Versus
The High Court of Sikkim,
Through the Registrar General,
High Court of Sikkim,
Gangtok, East Sikkim,
Pin-737101. Respondent
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Abhinav Kant Jha, Ms. Preeti Basnett, Mr. Anish Byahut, Mr.
Ishan Gurung, Ms. Chodenla Tamang and Mr. Yougen Sangpo
Sherpa, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kazi Sangay Thupden, Ms.
Prerana Rai, Ms. Srijana Bagdas and Mr. Sogyal Topden Norbu
Bhutia, Advocates for the Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 10.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 10.07.2026
Date on which uploaded : 14.07.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
(A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J.)
2026:SHC:77
WP(C)/37/2026
(Mrs. Bebika Chettri vs. The High Court of Sikkim)
This writ petition is filed by a Judicial Officer of the Sikkim
Superior Judicial Service, challenging the suspension order.
2. The Chief Justice, in concurrence with the Judge-In-Charge
(formed the Full-Court of the Court as there were no other judges),
decided to suspend the Officer on an allegation that the Petitioner
remained away from the Court while recording evidence and the
evidence was permitted to be recorded by the ‘Peshkar’ in open
Court.
3. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner.
As stated in the above show cause notice dated 18.06.2026, the
Petitioner abdicated the judicial responsibilities by permitting the
recording of evidence by the ‘Peshkar’ and others including Public
Prosecutor in open Court and by remaining in the chambers, away
from the proceedings.
4. The Petitioner has refuted this allegation, hence, pleaded total
innocence to the allegations against her.
5. Challenging the suspension order, the Petitioner approached
the Apex Court. The Apex Court directed the Petitioner to approach
the High Court on the judicial side. Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner vehemently argued the matter on behalf of the Petitioner
and submits that the suspension order is void ab initio and not in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Law &
Justice, Department of Justice, Government of India as per the
Annexure – ‘P1’. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
the High Court shall not entertain any complaints against a Judicial
Officer unless it is accompanied by sworn affidavits and verifiable
material to substantiate the allegation. Therefore, it is submitted
Page 2 of 6
2026:SHC:77
WP(C)/37/2026
(Mrs. Bebika Chettri vs. The High Court of Sikkim)
that without there being any complaint and any materials, the
Petitioner could not have been proceeded for disciplinary action.
6. It is further submitted that the impugned action is ex facie
illegal and contrary to Article 235 of the Constitution of India. It is
submitted that the High Court Administration failed to provide any
material to substantiate the allegation and there was no material
relied for the subjective satisfaction to order suspension.
7. On hearing the submissions, this Court passed the following
order yesterday, i.e. on 09.07.2026:-
“ Read order dated 08.07.2026.
The affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner. However,
nothing has been stated as to how she came into possession of
Annexure – ‘P 11’.
It is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate upon this
issue. If the Respondents are of the view that the Petitioner has
illegally obtained the said document from the Registry, it is
open to the Respondent to pursue such remedy against the
Petitioner in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that
no direction is required to be passed on the judicial side.
The arguments of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that
absolutely no material has been relied upon by the High Court
of Sikkim to suspend the Petitioner from service.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court of
Sikkim submits that all the materials will be provided to the
Petitioner at the time of framing of charges.
However, to ascertain the veracity of the said allegation, it is
appropriate for the High Court Registry to produce the materials
collected by tomorrow.
th
Stand over to 10 July, 2026.”
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent produced the
materials in a sealed cover. Learned Senior Counsel, submits that
the collection of materials is still in process and has recorded
statements from the learned Advocates and other staff members. It
is submitted that if the Petitioner is allowed to be reinstated, no
lawyer would dare enough to give further statements against a
judicial officer and there is a total chance of tampering evidence. It
is also pointed out that there was an instance of erasing CCTV
footage from the Court premises. It is pointed out that the Petitioner
Page 3 of 6
2026:SHC:77
WP(C)/37/2026
(Mrs. Bebika Chettri vs. The High Court of Sikkim)
th
was suspended on 13 June, 2026, and she came to the Court
th
premises on 14 June, 2026 (Sunday) without there being any
requirement.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refuted this allegation by
submitting that she had absolutely no role in erasing the CCTV
footage and if someone else has committed any mistake or
attempted to remove the CCTV footage, the Petitioner could not be
blamed for the same.
10. The question now ought to be considered is that whether on
the judicial side, this Court can interfere with the suspension order.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues on the
guidelines produced as the Annexure – ‘P1’ that it is not legally
correct and has no legal foundation. That is a matter relating to
entertaining complaints from the third party. Often it is found that a
third party registers anonymous complaints or without making any
Page 4 of 6
2026:SHC:77
WP(C)/37/2026
(Mrs. Bebika Chettri vs. The High Court of Sikkim)
reason. As a result of this, the employee is being harassed based
even on trivial issue.
14. This is not a case where the High Court acted based on any
complaint received but based on some information received with
regard to the conduct of Petitioner. Though, in what manner that
information was received by the High Court has not been disclosed
anywhere. Nevertheless, this Court need not examine those aspects
at this stage. After the suspension, it is seen that many lawyers
have come forward including some of the Officers to depose against
the Petitioner by stating that she remained away from the Court
while recording evidence in the Court room by ‘Peshkar’ and others.
If this allegation stands proved, it is a serious misconduct
warranting major penalty. However, that is a matter to be inquired
by following proper procedures.
15. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the materials collected
cannot be given now but will definitely be given along with the
charge memo. The submission is recorded.
16. This Court cannot insist on giving all the documents at the
stage of suspension. The Petitioner will be entitled for all the
documents when a charge memo is issued. The Court cannot re-
write the procedure and hold that all the documents should be given
and all the materials should be supplied at the stage of suspension.
17. At this stage of suspension, as noted above, the only
consideration is whether the employer was justified in keeping the
Petitioner under suspension taking note of the seriousness of the
allegation.
18. As noted above, the allegations are serious.
Page 5 of 6
2026:SHC:77
WP(C)/37/2026
(Mrs. Bebika Chettri vs. The High Court of Sikkim)
19. There are more than ten persons who have given statements
including lawyers and officers.
20. In such circumstances, this Court cannot take this lightly.
21. However, nothing prevents the High Court, on the
administrative side, from considering the reinstatement on being
satisfied that the Officer would not be a threat to the ongoing
inquiry.
22. However, it is appropriate that a timeline is to be fixed for the
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If the Petitioner
cooperates with the inquiry, the same shall be concluded within
three months. If the High Court Administration is unable to conclude
the inquiry within three months, no doubt the Petitioner cannot be
kept out of service for such a long period and shall be reinstated on
expiry of three months provided that the Petitioner has cooperated
with the inquiry.
23. With the above observations, declining the relief, the writ
petition being, WP(C) No.37 of 2026 , stands disposed of.
Digitally signed
by Justice A
Muhamed
Mustaque
Date: 2026.07.14
13:34:23 +05'30'
Justice A
Muhamed
Mustaque
Chief Justice
Approved for Reporting: Yes/No
ami
Page 6 of 6