New Delhi: A sessions judge was suspended last week by Delhi High Court “with immediate effect” following a complaint and initial probe by its vigilance wing. “Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Mr Sanjeev Kumar Singh, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, is contemplated. Now, therefore, this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, read with Rule 27 of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, hereby places the said Mr Sanjeev Kumar Singh under suspension with immediate effect,” says an administrative order passed by the registrar-general on Aug 29. The notice by the high court administration said that when the inquiry against Singh is on, he will have to remain in the capital. “It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the headquarters of Mr Sanjeev Kumar Singh shall be the office of principal district & sessions judge, south, Saket,” it said. TOI has learnt that the full court of the high court met on Aug 28 and decided to suspend the officer, based on the documents and other evidence presented to the judges. Immediate suspension and disciplinary proceedings were recommended to the full court by its vigilance committee for members of the Delhi higher judicial service and Delhi judicial service. Comprising justices Subramonium Prasad, Prateek Jalan, Amit Bansal, Amit Sharma and Manoj Jain, the vigilance committee deals with corruption or other misdemeanour-related allegations against district judiciary officers. It handles complaints and reports of corruption or misconduct in the Delhi judiciary that are either referred to it by the registrar (vigilance) or come to its notice. Informed sources told TOI that the complaint filed by a woman lawyer before the high court’s vigilance wing named Singh and a few others in connection with a criminal case lodged by the complainant against a Delhi-based male lawyer. According to sources, the committee also examined the complaint and other materials annexed with it, including — it is reliably learnt — call recordings of conversations. The committee also called Singh for an explanation to hear and understand his version of the development before reaching the prima facie conclusion that the issue needs a deeper, thorough probe.
