New Delhi, Aug. 8 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed justice Yashwant Varma's petition against the legality of the in-house inquiry that affirmed "strong inferential evidence" of his involvement in the discovery of sacks of charred currency at his official residence in Delhi earlier this year, upholding both the procedure and the authority of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in recommending his removal to the President and Prime Minister. The bench, comprising justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, refused to entertain the petition on multiple grounds, criticising the conduct of the sitting Allahabad high court judge under scrutiny. "The conduct of the petitioner does not inspire much confidence for us to entertain the writ petition," said the court, adding that it could have dismissed the plea on this basis alone, but chose instead to address the legal questions in detail. The court expressed disapproval of justice Varma's conduct, noting that he willingly participated in the inquiry without protest, raised no constitutional objections at the outset, and only challenged the procedure after an adverse report was submitted. "Once the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction, is it not to be presumed that he did so expecting a favourable outcome and the writ petition came to be filed only when the outcome was not palatable to him?" the bench asked. By a separate order, the bench also dismissed a related plea filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara seeking registration of a first information report into the matter, saying he had placed incorrect facts before the court and that his petition was an "abuse of the process of law". The court noted that although Nedumpara's petition stated categorically that he had moved a representation before the government and the Delhi police to lodge an FIR, the statement was found to be incorrect. The judgment now clears the way for potential parliamentary proceedings, which began with 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs submitting notices in Parliament for his removal on July 21, the opening day of the monsoon session. The government has said that the proceedings will be taken up in the Lower House. The court found it baffling that justice Varma, who was in March serving as a judge in the Delhi high court when the incident happened, acquiesced to incriminating materials, including photographs and video footage, being uploaded on the Supreme Court website, only to object after the report found substance in the allegations. While terming such uploading as improper and not required by the procedure, the bench dismissed the judge's arguments that it vitiated the inquiry, given that the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, "scrupulously" followed the in-house inquiry procedure. Rejecting senior advocate Kapil Sibal's contention that the in-house procedure lacked legal force, the court reaffirmed its validity, citing the precedents laid down in C Ravichandran Iyer (1995), PD Dinakaran (2011) and Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' (2015) judgments. "The procedure has its roots in the law declared by this court under Article 141 of the Constitution. It is judicial legislation that emerged because of the vacuum in the field of disciplining a judge who shows signs of delinquency," the judgment stated....