Sikkim High Court Suspends District Judge Prajwal Khatiwada
The Sikkim High Court has placed District and Sessions Judge Prajwal Khatiwada under suspension with immediate effect, pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The administrative decision was finalized by the Full Court following a formal review of multiple allegations involving his tenure as the Registrar General of the High Court, alongside his subsequent responses to issued show-cause notices.
What are the legal grounds and specific charges cited in the suspension order issued by the Sikkim High Court Full Court ?
The Full Court suspended the judicial officer based on allegations of unauthorized promotions, administrative appointments contrary to service rules, an estimated financial loss of 1.64 crore rupees, and intemperate replies to show-cause notices, concluding that his continued service remained incompatible with the proper administration of justice.
The primary grounds cited by the Full Court involve actions taken while Khatiwada served as the Registrar General. The administrative order highlights that promotions and upgradations were executed without adequate legal or administrative backing, resulting in an estimated financial loss of roughly 1.64 crore rupees to the administration. The Full Court rejected the defense that higher approval shielded the officer, stating that superior endorsement does not absolve a Registrar General of independent administrative responsibility. Additional grounds include questioning witness examination procedures in a vigilance inquiry, failing to submit Annual Confidential Reports despite repeated directions, and demonstrating an intemperate, accusatory approach in replies to formal show-cause notices.
Weeks prior to the suspension, Khatiwada approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, filing a writ petition that challenged an August show-cause notice. His petition alleged administrative targeting following a complaint he lodged on December 12, 2025, against a then-sitting High Court judge regarding alleged mistreatment. On September 9, a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana granted him liberty to approach the High Court instead, without expressing any view on the merits of the dispute. Notably, the suspension order issued by the Sikkim High Court Full Court makes no mention of the aforementioned Supreme Court petition or the underlying complaint against the High Court judge.
Administrative Charge | Full Court Finding | District Judge Defence |
|---|---|---|
Promotions and Upgradations | Executed without adequate legal or administrative basis, causing a financial loss of 1.64 crore rupees. | Actions followed the Chief Justice's directions under Article 229; Registrar General only prepared notes. |
Committee Recommendations | Individual responsibility attaches to the officer for the contested administrative proposals. | Promotions were unanimously recommended by a Departmental Promotion Committee of which he was only one member. |
Response to Show-Cause | Explanations were prima facie unsatisfactory, displaying an intemperate and accusatory tone. | Maintained that proceedings were not maintainable, vital materials were withheld, and inadequate time was given. |
In his written statement of defence addressing thirty-three articles of charge, Khatiwada denied all allegations and contested the maintainability of the disciplinary proceedings. He submitted that all appointments, promotions, and upgradations constituted decisions made by the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution, while his own function remained strictly confined to preparing and placing proposals under official direction. He further relied on a Supreme Court order stating that a Registrar General acts purely on behalf of the Chief Justice and the judges of the court. Furthermore, the defence raised procedural grievances, asserting that vital materials such as Full Court minutes were withheld, that only thirty days including court holidays were provided to answer thirty-three distinct charges, and that several new allegations were introduced for the first time within the charge memorandum.
The suspension order records a prima facie conclusion by the Full Court that the explanations furnished by the judicial officer lacked merit, rendering his continuation in office detrimental to the administration of justice. The formal suspension remains active until the final resolution of the disciplinary proceedings, with the judicial officer barred from discharging judicial duties during this period.