The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea filed by Inalo Zhimomi, former Principal District and Sessions Judge of Dimapur, Nagaland, challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against him over the alleged misappropriation of over Rs 14 lakh in cash surety deposits, Bar and Bench reported.
Zhimomi, who had earlier secured anticipatory bail in the criminal case arising from the same allegations, approached the apex court seeking relief in the departmental inquiry initiated by the Gauhati High Court.
His counsel argued that the disciplinary action stemmed from two judicial orders passed by Zhimomi in which he had directed the release of seized vehicles.
However, a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh made it clear that the top court would not interfere in such internal disciplinary matters.
The bench also dismissed the urgency raised by Zhimomi’s counsel, who sought a stay citing impending disciplinary proceedings scheduled the next day.
Subsequently, the petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to approach the High Court in review, which was allowed by the Court.
The disciplinary proceedings stem from an FIR registered under Sections 316(4)/(5) (criminal breach of trust), 337 (forgery of court record), and 3(5) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The FIR, filed on the directions of the Gauhati High Court, alleged that Rs 14.35 lakh in bail amounts from 28 criminal cases had been collected by the judge but not deposited. The complaint was based on a letter from the current Principal District Judge of Dimapur.
Zhimomi has challenged the allegations, asserting that he had raised systemic concerns regarding cash surety practices as early as 2013. In his writ petition pending before the Gauhati High Court, he claimed to have written to the Protocol Judge of the High Court during his tenure as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kohima, highlighting irregularities in handling bail bond amounts.
After being posted as District and Sessions Judge at Mon, Zhimomi was suspended and issued a show-cause notice under the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. On March 25, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 20(2) of the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006.
He has since contended that the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice and Supreme Court precedents. During the pendency of his writ petition, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Registrar (Vigilance), prompting further objections from Zhimomi about conducting disciplinary inquiries post-retirement.
Zhimomi’s application for anticipatory bail was initially rejected by the Gauhati High Court on May 29, before being granted by the Supreme Court on June 17.
Advocates Siddhartha Borgohain, Aditya Giri, and Watitemjen Jamir appeared for the petitioner.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)