NEW DELHI: The inquiry committee on the Justice Varma cash case has rejected both theories put forth by the HC judge in his defence – that the cash could have been planted in the storeroom of his residence and that the storeroom was set afire by an act of arson to implicate him.The committee, constituted on March 22 by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, comprised seasoned constitutional court judges – Punjab and Haryana Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh CJ G S Sandhawalia and Karnataka HC’s Justice Anu Sivaraman.It examined 55 witnesses, including Justice Varma, which were video recorded, to confirm every report of TOI on the sensational controversy. The panel’s report also referred to TOI’s March 21 story breaking the news.Rejecting Justice Varma’s defence – that “someone could have planted the cash in the storeroom in his absence as it was accessible to everyone” – the panel in its 64-page report said, “The overall control and the permission to have access to the storeroom was undeniably with Justice Varma.”This should remove all doubts about the launch of proceedings for removal of the HC judge in the monsoon session of Parliament beginning on July 21.The panel cited the fact that the judge was in control of the Tughlaq Crescent bungalow to reject his defence of conspiracy and arson – essentially that someone with mala fide intention planted the cash at his official bungalow and then set off the fire. Referring to statements of security personnel, the panel noted that no one could access the house without the permission of family members and “therefore, it’s well nigh impossible for currency to be planted in the storeroom of a sitting judge, which is being monitored by static 1+4 guard and a PSO stationed at the gate at all time, apart from the fact that the house abounds with a large number of old and trusted domestic servants with over six staff quarters”.The committee also disregarded the theory of “arson” – “a criminal act of deliberately setting fire to property” – belatedly flagged by Justice Varma. Members of the panel said that by the judge’s own initial version, the fire was triggered by a short circuit, besides noting that he did not follow up by registering a police complaint.Significantly, the panel also underlined that the judge had quietly accepted his transfer to Allahabad HC, in the wake of publication of a report in TOI. “The categorical acceptance on March 20, immediately, without any demur and, respectfully accepting the decision of repatriation to Allahabad would, in normal circumstances, only be done after discussion with family members at least and after an attempt to find out the reason for transfer, having served in Delhi HC for the last three years,” the report said.”It is his categorical case that he has served diligently for a decade without any complaint. Thus, he would have liked to find out the reason for the transfer,” it added.In conclusion, the inquiry panel said, “In the absence of any plausible explanation coming from Justice Varma or his family members or, for that matter, any other witness, this committee is left with no option but to hold that the trust reposed in him was belied by him by allowing highly suspicious material in the shape of piles of currency notes to be stashed in the storeroom. Whether this stashing was done with tacit or explicit consent of Justice Varma or his family members is of little significance in the face of the larger concept of breach of public trust and probity expected of the high constitutional office held by Justice Varma. “The committee repeatedly termed the post-cash discovery conduct of Justice Varma as “unnatural” and “illogical” and said, “Keeping in view the direct and electronic evidence on record, this committee is firmly of the view that there is sufficient substance in the allegations raised in the letter of CJI (Sanjiv Khanna) dated March 22 and the misconduct found proved is serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma. “The committee also found it odd that the judge, who cut short his vacation in the Satpura forests after having been informed of the fire, did not deem it fit to visit the site until March 15 when the principal private secretary to the Delhi HC chief justice came for an inspection.The committee also stated that Justice Varma’s daughter tried to dissuade firemen from entering the bungalow by telling them that the flames had already been controlled.The report said Justice Varma’s private secretary, Delhi HC employee Rajinder Singh Karki, frantically tried to reach the judge on phone from the residence. “He had a detailed conversation with Justice Varma at 1.23am on March 15” when the judge asked him to stay back at the residence, the report said.It was Karki who instructed firemen not to mention burnt cash in their report, the panel said. It also found from the security guard’s statement that Karki and a trusted servant, Mohd Rahil “were busy supervising the cleaning up job after the fire wagons had left”.During questioning by the committee, Karki entangled himself in contradictory statements, the report said.The committee was also surprised to find that CCTV footage had been wiped out from the hard disc between March 15 and March 25, when the inquiry started.