Sikkim High Court Suspends District Judge Prajwal Khatiwada Amid Disciplinary Proceedings

Gangtok, November 7 : Sikkim High Court Suspends District Judge Prajwal Khatiwada, currently serving as the District and Sessions Judge at Mangan, following allegations of administrative irregularities and misconduct during his previous tenure as Registrar General of the High Court. The suspension comes weeks after the judicial officer approached the Supreme Court, alleging retaliatory administrative action following a complaint against a then-sitting High Court judge.

According to a report published by Bar & Bench on November 7, the suspension order was issued on November 4, 2026, following a decision by the Full Court of the Sikkim High Court. Khatiwada has been placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending disciplinary proceedings and until further orders. The Full Court reportedly found his explanations to two show-cause notices prima facie unsatisfactory and concluded that his continuation in office was not conducive to the proper administration of justice.

Alleged Administrative Irregularities Involving ₹1.64 Crore

The disciplinary proceedings primarily concern allegations relating to Khatiwada’s tenure as Registrar General of the Sikkim High Court. These include promotions, service upgradations and appointments allegedly undertaken without sufficient legal or administrative justification or in violation of applicable rules.

The suspension order reportedly refers to an estimated financial loss of approximately ₹1.64 crore arising from the alleged irregularities. The Full Court maintained that approval from higher authorities would not automatically absolve a judicial officer of independent administrative responsibilities.

Additional concerns cited in the proceedings include a communication dated August 6 questioning the examination of witnesses during a vigilance enquiry, failure to submit an Annual Confidential Report despite repeated directions, and allegations of conduct considered unbecoming of a judicial officer. The Full Court also reportedly objected to what it described as the intemperate and accusatory tone of Khatiwada’s responses to official notices.

However, these allegations remain subject to disciplinary determination and do not constitute established findings of guilt.

District Judge Had Earlier Approached Supreme Court

The suspension has attracted attention because Khatiwada had previously approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging a show-cause notice issued on August 12, 2026.

In his petition, the judicial officer alleged that the dispute began after he submitted a complaint on December 12, 2025, against a then-sitting judge of the Sikkim High Court, accusing the judge of mistreatment and humiliation.

He further claimed that the concerned High Court judge was appointed Acting Chief Justice shortly thereafter and that he subsequently faced a series of administrative actions that he considered retaliatory.

On September 9, 2026, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana granted Khatiwada liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of his allegations.

Notably, the November 4 suspension order does not refer to Khatiwada’s complaint against the High Court judge or his petition before the Supreme Court. No causal connection between those proceedings and the suspension has been established.

Khatiwada Denies Charges and Questions Disciplinary Proceedings

In his written defence responding to 33 articles of charge, Khatiwada has denied the allegations and questioned the maintainability of the disciplinary proceedings.

He contended that the appointments, promotions and service upgradations under scrutiny were decisions taken by the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution. According to his defence, his responsibilities as Registrar General were limited to preparing and submitting administrative proposals in accordance with directions received from the Chief Justice.

Khatiwada also maintained that the promotions were unanimously recommended by a Departmental Promotion Committee, of which he was only one member. He questioned why disciplinary action had been initiated against him alone.

The judicial officer further alleged procedural deficiencies, including the non-supply of important documents such as Full Court meeting minutes. He argued that the 30-day period provided to respond to 33 articles of charge, which included court holidays, was inadequate. He also claimed that certain allegations had appeared for the first time in the formal charge memorandum.

Suspension Pending Final Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings

The developments have drawn attention to the disciplinary framework governing judicial officers and the administrative responsibilities exercised within the High Court establishment.

While the Full Court has cited alleged financial irregularities, administrative lapses and misconduct as grounds for suspension, Khatiwada continues to dispute the allegations and the procedure adopted against him.

The suspension remains an interim administrative measure pending disciplinary proceedings rather than a final determination of misconduct. The ultimate outcome will depend on the findings of the disciplinary process and any subsequent judicial proceedings.

Source: Bar & Bench, November 7, 2026