‘No Proof, Only Conjectures’: Uttarakhand High Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Civil Judge Accused of Abusing Minor

The Uttarakhand High Court recently set aside the dismissal of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Haridwar who was removed from service over allegations of abusing a minor domestic help.

Calling the case a “mountain made out of a molehill,” the high court held that the disciplinary action was founded on no legally sustainable evidence, describing the proceedings as a “carefully crafted edifice without a foundation".

The bench comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay found that the inquiry against the judge relied on conjecture, omissions and unproven material, and noted that even basic requirements such as producing credible medical evidence, examining natural witnesses, or establishing a coherent timeline of alleged abuse were completely absent.

The disciplinary action against civil judge Deepali Sharma originated from an anonymous email complaint sent to the high court in January 2018, alleging that she had kept a minor girl as a domestic help and subjected her to physical abuse.

Allegedly, the judicial officer had kept the minor for nearly three years and used to beat her with sticks and metal objects. Allegedly, the minor was also denied food, and she sustained as many as 20 injuries.

Acting on the complaint, the district judge, accompanied by police officials and members of the Child Welfare Committee, visited the judge’s official residence and removed the child. A departmental inquiry followed, ultimately leading to the judge’s dismissal from service in 2020.

Challenging her dismissal, the judicial officer filed a service writ petition in the high court, against both the disciplinary proceedings and the final order removing her from service. In her petition, she assailed the manner in which the proceedings were initiated, contending that the action was based on an anonymous complaint, lacked authorisation at the highest level, and was vitiated by serious procedural irregularities.

The high court also found that the inquiry process itself was deeply flawed. Court also raised serious concerns over the manner in which the proceedings were initiated.

The bench noted that the complaint remained anonymous despite official circulars discouraging action on such complaints. It found that no written order, email, or contemporaneous record was produced to establish that the then Chief Justice had formally authorised either the spot inquiry or the judge’s suspension, despite repeated objections raised by the petitioner.

Court was sharply critical of the medical evidence relied upon to support the allegation of abuse. It observed that the wound certificate placed on record did not bear the signature of the examining doctor, contained no case history, and was never proved through a qualified medical professional. Instead, the document was sought to be established through the testimony of a staff nurse and a pharmacist, a course the bench said was wholly unknown to law and insufficient to prove physical assault.

The bench also highlighted glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version. While the anonymous complaint claimed that the child had visible injuries and bleeding days earlier, the medical report assessed the injuries as only one to two days old. Court noted that this contradiction remained unexplained. It further found it implausible that despite allegations of repeated beatings and starvation, there was no record of hospital admission, treatment, or medication.

Examining the inquiry officer’s reasoning in detail, court took issue with the reliance placed on subjective impressions, including the claim that the child appeared frightened when she opened the door during the spot visit.

The bench held that fear or nervousness at the sight of a large police contingent, videographers and senior officials could not, by itself, be treated as proof of prior abuse.

It observed that behavioural assumptions were repeatedly converted into findings of guilt, without corroboration from independent or medical evidence.

The high court also found fault with the selective nature of the inquiry. It noted that the judicial officer resided in a secured judges’ colony, with neighbouring judicial officers and court staff posted at her residence. Yet, none of the peons or neighbours, described by the court as the most natural witnesses, were examined. This omission, the bench said, seriously undermined the credibility of the inquiry.

Court also strongly criticised the manner in which the spot visit was conducted. Court questioned why a verification exercise involved a large police contingent, senior officers and videographers, observing that the scale of the operation appeared excessive and unexplained.

It also expressed disquiet over the decision to keep the child in a shelter home for several months despite her parents being identified, available and willing to take custody, noting that no allegation of abuse had been made against them.

After analysing the evidence and arguments in depth, court concluded that the inquiry proceeded on presumption rather than proof, ignored defence material without reason, and failed to establish the ingredients of misconduct under the conduct rules invoked.

The division bench ultimately set aside the dismissal order, holding that the disciplinary proceedings could not be sustained in law.

Case Title: Deepali Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Judgment Date: January 6, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay