New Delhi: Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma who resigned as a judge, has also withdrawn from the proceedings before the Judges Inquiry Committee, set up by Lok Sabha Speaker to examine the misbehaviour charges against him in connection with the alleged recovery of cash from a storeroom at his official residence.
In a letter to the committee on April 9, he wrote, "History will one day record the unfairness with which a sitting high court Judge was treated."
Justice Varma said he has been subjected to a ''vilification campaign for over a year based on unfounded allegations, which would have never met even the bare threshold known in law on the basis of which a court would have deemed it appropriate to take cognisance in ordinary circumstances''.
He said a rational and fair inquiry would have recognised the complete absence of a prima facie case and dropped the proceedings at this stage, rather than requiring him to prove multiple negatives and disprove unsubstantiated presumptions.
"Instead, the committee has directed me to lead evidence in my defence," he said.
In these circumstances, he said, "I am constrained to conclude that these proceedings too rest on the bare and undisputed facts that a storeroom existed within the allotted premises and that cash was allegedly found there."
"If that alone is considered sufficient for a finding of misbehaviour, the entire exercise of leading evidence was unnecessary. The burden of proof has been effectively reversed without any foundational case being made out," he said.
Citing dropping of witnesses, and no opportunity of cross examinations of other witnesses, the judge maintained he cannot reconcile this state of affairs with any notion of fairness or due process.
He pointed out, of the 54 witnesses who appeared before the preliminary committee, 27 were dropped without any explanation.
'Should have done it earlier': Allahabad HC Bar Association President welcomes Justice Varma's resignation"I would be doing myself and the institution the greatest disservice by continuing to participate in the present proceedings, thereby legitimising a process that calls upon me to answer the unanswerable - where did the money come from...I therefore withdraw from these proceedings with immediate effect,'' he said.
He also reiterated the store room, from cash haul was allegedly found, was a detached structure, adjacent to staff quarters, separately by boundary walls from the family living quarters and his office.
It was accessible from the back gate of the premises, which was not manned by any security. It was regularly used and accessed by domestic staff, maintenance personnel and others for routine chores and for storing ordinary items such as unused furniture, bottles, crockery, mattresses, used carpets, old speakers, garden implements and CPWD material, he claimed.
"The storeroom was usually kept unlocked and, even when locked, the key was never in my possession or under my instructions. I myself had visited the storeroom only four or five times in the entire two years of my stay," he wrote.
A CCTV camera was positioned directly facing the entry to the storeroom, with its live footage streaming to the guardroom and being recorded on equipment completely outside his control.
The CRPF guards and Personal Security Officers reported to persons other than him, and thus, the entire security apparatus was never under his control.
Despite repeated requests, this best evidence that could shed light on the entire incident has been kept away. His attempts at obtaining even a clone or copy of the same has consistently been declined, he contended.