New Delhi, July 18 -- Justice Yashwant Varma, who has been at the centre of controversy since the discovery of charred currency notes at his official residence in Delhi in March this year, moved the Supreme Court on Thursday, seeking to invalidate a report by an in-house inquiry panel that found "strong inferential evidence" of his "covert or active control" over the cash. In a writ petition, Justice Varma also sought to quash the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna urging Parliament to initiate his impeachment. The recommendation, the judge contended, was based on an "unsustainable" report prepared through a process that he said ran completely roughshod over his rights as a constitutional functionary and an individual. The petition comes just ahead of the monsoon session of Parliament that begins next week and which will see the government begin the process of impeaching the judge. According to people aware of the development, Justice Varma's petition accused the three-judge inquiry panel of drawing adverse findings without affording him a full and fair hearing. It also contended that the committee failed to investigate foundational facts, particularly those concerning the alleged cash found by first responders on March 14, that would be necessary to establish culpability. While acknowledging that some currency may have been found in the outhouse of his residence, Justice Varma maintained that further inquiry was essential to establish ownership, authenticity and other material facts. Instead, the panel, he said, rushed to conclude the proceedings and drew adverse inferences without giving him a proper opportunity to defend himself. The petition, which is yet to be listed before a bench, amounts to a strong rebuttal of the in-house committee's findings and process. The panel was constituted on March 22 by then CJI Khanna to probe the incident, and comprised Justice Sheel Nagu (then Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court), Justice GS Sandhawalia (then Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Judge, Karnataka High Court). Justice Varma, one of the persons cited above said, has argued in his petition that the inquiry reversed the burden of proof, requiring him , the person accused, to investigate and disprove the charges against him, while proceeding with what he described as an outcome-driven approach based on a preconceived narrative. He added that the inquiry timelines were driven solely by the urge to conclude proceedings swiftly, even at the expense of procedural fairness. As reported first by Hindustan Times on June 18, Justice Varma was advised by then CJI Khanna to either resign or opt for voluntary retirement following the panel's findings. He refused, stating that stepping down would amount to accepting a "fundamentally unjust" process. In a detailed letter dated May 6, Justice Varma rejected the CJI's advice and flagged serious violations of principles of natural justice, urging reconsideration of both the findings and the process. The controversy originated on March 14, when a fire broke out at the outhouse of Justice Varma's residence. Firefighters reportedly discovered charred currency stuffed in sacks. The then Chief Justice of Delhi High Court flagged the incident to the CJI, who then constituted the three-member inquiry panel. On May 3, the committee submitted its report, concluding that Justice Varma was liable for misconduct. On May 8, the Supreme Court issued a press statement noting that Justice Varma had submitted a response but reiterated his earlier stand, denying any wrongdoing and terming the incident a "conspiracy." In the wake of the inquiry, he was divested of judicial work and transferred to his parent high court in Allahabad. A letter from Justice Khanna enclosing the panel report was also forwarded to the President and Prime Minister, recommending action. The 64-page report of the inquiry committee stated that although no direct evidence linked the judge to the stash of money, "strong inferential evidence" suggested his "covert or active control" over it. The report concluded that the judge's conduct "belied the trust" reposed in a constitutional court judge and amounted to serious judicial misconduct warranting impeachment. "The very existence of judicial office is founded upon the trust of the citizens. Any deficiency in this regard erodes public trust," noted the committee, adding that Justice Varma's actions and omissions failed to inspire confidence. It further stated that once the presence of burnt cash in his storeroom was established, "the burden shifted upon Justice Varma to account for the money by giving a plausible explanation, which he failed to do, except projecting a flat denial and raising a bald plea of conspiracy." The panel held that whether the stashing of cash was done with the tacit or explicit knowledge of Justice Varma or his family members was "of little significance" in the broader context of breach of public trust associated with a high constitutional office. The committee ultimately concluded that the allegations warranted impeachment proceedings, citing grave misconduct incompatible with the integrity expected from a judge of the higher judiciary. The episode has since taken on a political dimension. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju recently confirmed that the Union government had approached Opposition parties for support to initiate an impeachment motion during the upcoming monsoon session beginning July 21. The motion is expected to be introduced by law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. Adding a layer of complexity, Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar raised questions about the constitutional validity of the in-house process at a public event on May 19, calling it "inconsequential" and suggesting that a formal criminal investigation would be more appropriate....