Former Nagaland judge Zhimomi, who earlier got anticipatory bail in the related criminal case, moved the Supreme Court for relief in the disciplinary action. The Court refused, saying, “Exonerate yourself, face the proceeding and come out clean.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a petition from Inalo Zhimomi, the former Principal District and Sessions Judge of Dimapur in Nagaland, who challenged the departmental proceedings against him regarding the alleged misappropriation of over Rs.14 lakh in cash surety deposits.
Zhimomi, who had previously obtained anticipatory bail in a related criminal case, approached the Supreme Court seeking relief from the disciplinary actions initiated by the High Court.
Also Read: Gurugram Court Clash || Bar Association to Approach High Court Against Judge
During the hearing, his lawyer argued that the disciplinary measures were based on two judicial orders issued by Zhimomi, in which he ordered the release of seized vehicles.
The lawyer contended,
“The High Court took cognizance and said I could not order the release of vehicles as per the law. Then he granted bail to someone…”
However, Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh made it clear that the Supreme Court would not interfere in such matters, emphasizing that the judge has the right to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings.
The court stated,
“We will not sit on appeal on such decisions. Exonerate yourself. Right or wrong – face the proceeding and come out clean,”
The petitioner’s counsel then requested permission to withdraw the petition, with the option to approach the High Court for a review. The court granted this request.
When the counsel attempted to highlight the urgency of the impending disciplinary proceedings scheduled for the following day, the Bench responded,
“No, no, nothing doing. He is a judicial officer of the High Court and High Court has decided it.”
Also Read: FIR Against a Sitting Judge: Legal Provisions, Judicial Precedents & Inquiry Process
A police complaint was filed against Inalo Zhimomi and two others by the current Principal and District Judge, alleging cash misappropriation. This followed Zhimomi’s assertion that he was forcibly removed from service by the state after a court order in Nagaland.
Zhimomi challenged this court order in the Gauhati High Court, which denied him interim relief without addressing the case’s merits. Subsequently, he approached the Supreme Court in response to the May 29 ruling.
Earlier, the Principal and District Judge for Dimapur had provided a written statement, as directed by the Gauhati High Court, indicating that Rs.14.35 lakh was missing cash deposited for sureties linked to pending criminal cases.
Unlike other states, Nagaland lacks a bail bond system; instead, cash must be deposited for sureties specified in bail orders. The missing funds refer to 29 cases recorded in 2024.
Zhimomi contends that when he served as Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kohima, he alerted the Gauhati High Court in September 2013 regarding this issue.
Also Read: Sloganeering Against Judge: Kerala High Court Closed Contempt Case Against Lawyer
In his petition to the Supreme Court, he described his forced retirement as “illegal” and accused the authorities of constitutional violations, particularly the registration of a criminal case without adhering to established procedures set by the Supreme Court in a 1991 ruling.
His request for anticipatory bail was initially denied by the Gauhati High Court on May 29. He later obtained anticipatory bail from the Supreme Court on June 17.
Advocates Siddhartha Borgohain, Aditya Giri, and Watitemjen Jamir represented the petitioner-judge.
Case Title: SHRI INALO ZHIMOMI v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND
Read Attachment