New Delhi, July 29 -- The Supreme Court on Monday posed sharp questions to Justice Yashwant Varma over his challenge to an in-house judicial inquiry that found "strong inferential evidence" of his "covert or active control" over sacks of charred currency recovered from his official residence in Delhi, asking why he participated in the proceedings if he believed the process to be unconstitutional and tainted. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih expressed reservations about both the procedural casualness of Justice Varma's petition and the timing of his legal challenge, noting that he could have approached the court earlier instead of waiting for the inquiry panel to conclude its findings and the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to forward a recommendation for his removal. "You are a constitutional authority. You cannot say you didn't know. You could have immediately come to us and raised all these points," the bench told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Justice Varma. The bench also asked whether the judge had "taken a chance for a favourable outcome" by engaging with the in-house panel and only turning to the top court once the findings went against him. "Why did you appear before the committee and not challenge it then and there?" the bench asked, adding: "If this (the report) is of no worth, what are you challenging?" The observations came as the top court began hearing Justice Varma's writ petition challenging the May 3 findings of the in-house judicial committee and the subsequent May 8 communication by then CJI Khanna to the President and Prime Minister recommending Parliament initiate impeachment proceedings. The panel was constituted following a fire on March 14 at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi, where sacks of charred currency were allegedly found. At the time, he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court. The bench began the hearing by pointing out multiple procedural lapses in the filing of the petition. "This petition should not have been filed so casually," said Justice Datta. "There are three respondents. Union of India was not required. Registrar of the confidential cell is not required. You only required the Secretary General of the court. And there your copy shows it as 'Registrar General'. It shows the casual approach," justice Dutta added. Sibal acknowledged the oversight and said corrections would be made. While asserting that the in-house procedure violated constitutional safeguards under Article 124(5), Sibal argued that a judge's conduct cannot be examined or acted upon without a prior impeachment motion in Parliament, citing the 1991 Constitution bench ruling in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability Vs Union of India. "The procedure adopted in this case has violated the constitutional scheme. The report was made public even before the process for removal began. The video showing the charred cash was released on day one. The man stood convicted then and there.and what is he asked in the inquiry? 'Where is the cash from? Why did you not object to your transfer?'" Sibal added....