Employer's prerogative to suspend judicial officer for serious misconduct takes precedence over procedural guidelines for third-party complaints.

The Petitioner, a Judicial Officer of the Sikkim Superior Judicial Service, was suspended by the Chief Justice in concurrence with the Judge-In-Charge (together forming the Full Court).

The suspension followed allegations that the Petitioner abdicated judicial responsibilities by remaining in chambers while her 'Peshkar' and others recorded evidence in open court.

The Petitioner pleaded total innocence and challenged the suspension order, initially before the Supreme Court, which directed her to approach the High Court on the judicial side.

The Petitioner argued the suspension was void ab initio for lack of supporting material/affidavits as per Government of India guidelines.

The High Court Registry produced statements from advocates and staff in a sealed cover and alleged that CCTV footage from the court premises had been erased.

The Court applied the principle that suspension is a "prerogative right of the employer" to prevent interference with ongoing inquiries.

Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the High Court exercises administrative control over the subordinate judiciary.

Administrative guidelines regarding third-party complaints (requiring affidavits) do not preclude the High Court from acting suo motu based on internal information.

The standard for judicial review of suspension is limited to cases of "ex facie illegality".

The Court reasoned that the High Court Administration was justified in its subjective satisfaction to suspend the Petitioner given the gravity of the misconduct—abdication of judicial duty—which, if proved, warrants a major penalty.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that all materials must be supplied at the suspension stage, holding that such disclosure is only mandatory at the time of issuing the charge memo.

Regarding the procedural guidelines (Annexure P-1), the Court found them inapplicable because the action was initiated based on internal information regarding the Petitioner’s conduct, not a third-party complaint.

The court took note of the Registry's concerns regarding potential witness intimidation and the suspicious erasure of CCTV footage, which strengthened the employer’s justification for keeping the officer out of office during the investigation.

The Court directed that the disciplinary proceedings be concluded within three months; if not completed within this timeframe (provided the Petitioner cooperates), the Petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement.