Supreme Court declines to entertain former Nagaland judge’s plea against disciplinary action in INR 14 lakh misappropriation case

DIMAPUR — The Supreme Court on June 27 declined to entertain a petition filed by Inalo Zhimomi, former Principal District and Sessions Judge of Dimapur, challenging departmental proceedings initiated against him over alleged misappropriation of more than INR 14 lakh in bail surety deposits.

According to a Bar and Bench report, Zhimomi—who had earlier secured anticipatory bail in the related criminal case—approached the apex court seeking relief from the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Gauhati High Court.

The matter arose from an FIR alleging that cash sureties collected in connection with 28 criminal cases were not deposited into the treasury, resulting in a total shortfall of INR 14.35 lakh.

Related: Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to retired Nagaland judge

During the hearing, Zhimomi’s counsel argued that the disciplinary action was based on two judicial orders passed by the judge, including one where he had directed the release of seized vehicles. The High Court held that such orders were not in accordance with law, the counsel submitted.

However, a bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh made it clear that the top court would not interfere in the matter. “We will not sit on appeal on such decisions. Exonerate yourself—right or wrong—face the proceeding and come out clean,” the bench remarked.

Following this, Zhimomi’s counsel sought to withdraw the petition, with liberty to approach the High Court for a review. The Supreme Court granted the request.

When the counsel raised concerns about the urgency of the disciplinary proceedings, scheduled for the following day, the bench responded firmly: “No, no, nothing doing. He is a judicial officer of the High Court and the High Court has decided it.”

The disciplinary case stems from an FIR registered under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) dealing with criminal breach of trust, forgery of court records, and criminal conspiracy.

The FIR was filed following directions from the Gauhati High Court, based on a complaint submitted by the current Principal District Judge of Dimapur.

Zhimomi has denied any wrongdoing, asserting that he had long flagged systemic irregularities in the handling of cash bail deposits.

In a pending writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, he claims to have written as early as 2013—while serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kohima—raising concerns with the Protocol Judge of the High Court.

Later posted as District and Sessions Judge in Mon, Zhimomi was suspended and issued a show-cause notice under the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967.

Subsequently, on March 25, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 20(2) of the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006.

He has since contested the disciplinary proceedings, arguing that they violate principles of natural justice and established Supreme Court precedents.

He also raised procedural objections, questioning the legality of continuing disciplinary inquiries after his compulsory retirement. An Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Registrar (Vigilance) during the pendency of his case.

Zhimomi’s application for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected by the Gauhati High Court on May 29, but the Supreme Court granted him relief on June 17.