Guwahati: The Sikkim High Court has suspended Mangan District and Sessions Judge Prajwal Khatiwada amid pending disciplinary proceedings, weeks after he approached the Supreme Court alleging targeted action for filing a complaint against a then-serving High Court judge.
The suspension was approved by the High Court’s Full Court and formalised through an order dated November 4. It took immediate effect and will remain in force until further orders.
Before approving the suspension, the Full Court examined Khatiwada’s replies to two show-cause notices. It found his explanations inadequate and held that his continued presence in office was incompatible with the proper administration of justice.
The suspension order, however, does not mention his complaint against the High Court judge or the subsequent Supreme Court proceedings.
Khatiwada had challenged an August 12 show-cause notice through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. He traced the dispute to December 12, 2025, when he complained against a High Court judge, accusing the latter of humiliating and mistreating him.
He alleged that administrative decisions were subsequently taken against him after the judge became Acting Chief Justice a few days later.
The Supreme Court heard the petition on September 9. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana allowed Khatiwada to pursue his case before the High Court without ruling on the merits of his allegations.
The disciplinary proceedings largely concern decisions taken during Khatiwada’s tenure as Registrar General.
The charges include granting promotions and service upgradations without sufficient legal or administrative grounds and making appointments that allegedly violated applicable rules.
The resulting loss to the exchequer has been estimated at around Rs 1.64 crore. The disciplinary order also refers to an August 6 communication in which Khatiwada questioned witness examinations during a vigilance inquiry.
It cites his failure to submit his Annual Confidential Report despite repeated directions and includes allegations of conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. These charges are yet to be adjudicated.
The Full Court also criticised the language in Khatiwada’s replies, describing it as intemperate and accusatory.
In his written response, Khatiwada contested all 33 charges and questioned the legal basis of the proceedings. He argued that the disputed service decisions fell within the Chief Justice’s authority under Article 229 of the Constitution and were not independently taken by him.
He said his role was administrative, involving the preparation of notes and submission of proposals in accordance with the Chief Justice’s instructions. He also cited a Supreme Court order dated May 18, 2026, which, according to his interpretation, established that a Registrar General exercises these powers on behalf of the Chief Justice and the High Court judges.
On the promotions, Khatiwada referred to the unanimous recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, of which he was a member.
He questioned why he alone faced disciplinary action when the decisions involved the committee and argued that approvals from senior authorities did not make him solely responsible. He also claimed that key documents required for his defence, including minutes of Full Court meetings, had been withheld.
He challenged the 30-day deadline for responding to the 33 charges, arguing that it included court holidays and left him with insufficient time. He further alleged that some accusations appeared only in the formal charge memorandum.