RAJINDER GOEL versus HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 02-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Rejected
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
RAJINDER GOEL
v.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA  & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 696 of 2021)
AUGUST 02, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
High Court: Judicial officer – Unexplained huge financial
transactions – Recommendation made by the Full Court of the High
Court  for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of
Additional District and Sessions Judge – On appeal, held: There
were multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of
substantial amounts of money, it cannot be said that the Full Court
was not justified in taking the view that it did – Judicial service –
Judicial ethics – Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and appeal)
Rules, 1987.
Rules of the Court, 1952: Chapter III; rule 1 –
Recommendation made by Administrative Committee – Jurisdiction
of Full Court to take different view in the matter – Scope of –
Discussed.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and
another (1978) 2 SCC 102 : [1978] 3 SCR 131–
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1978] 3 SCR 131
referred to
Para 9
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.696
of 2021.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv., Aditya Soni, Advs. for the Petitioner.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 314
314
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
315
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O  R  D  E  R
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. The instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
has been filed seeking appropriate writ,order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing :-
a) the recommendation dated 14.12.2020 made by the Full Court
of the High Court1 recommending compulsory retirement of
the petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions
Judge; and
b) order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Governor of Haryana
accepting the recommendation made by the Full Court of the
High Court1and directing compulsory retirement of the petitioner
with immediate effect.
2. The petitioner joined Haryana Judicial Services on 16.02.1996
and was promoted in 2008 to the Haryana Superior Judicial Services.
Pursuant to certain complaints made against the petitioner, including one
made by the Bar Association, an enquiry was conducted, during the
course of which the petitioner was asked to furnish statements regarding
his bank accounts and property for the years 2006 to 2009. A preliminary
report dated 21.04.2011 found that there was no documentary evidence
regarding allegations of land purchases. It was, however, observed that
there were “heavy unexplained bank transactions”. The report was
reviewed by the Administrative Committee of the High Court1 on
03.08.2011, which decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
the petitioner and recommended that the petitioner be put under
suspension. On 05.08.2011 the Full Court ordered that the Vigilance/
Disciplinary Committee proceedings be initiated against the petitioner
and that the petitioner be suspended till the proceedings were concluded.
3. On 26.04.2012, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner
accusing him of conduct against judicial ethics inasmuch as he had
deposited and withdrawn large sums of money without giving any specific
reason for that. The petitioner replied to those charges submitting inter
alia that those irregular deposits in his accounts were from the maturity
amounts of his LIC policies, sale of properties which were acquired by
RAJINDER GOEL v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA & ANR.
1 High Court of Punjab and Haryana
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
him before he entered the judicial service, maturity of PPF accounts and
other bank bonds. The Inquiring Authority submitted a report on
23.05.2016 finding the petitioner guilty of unexplained transactions.
4. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner
on 29.08.2016, which was replied to by the petitioner on 15.02.2017.
The matter was looked into by the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee of
the High Court1 which found that the charges levelled against the
petitioner were not proved and recommended that he be cleared of all
the charges. The matter was, thereafter, placed before the Full Court of
the High Court1 which resolved in its meeting dated 04.02.2019 that the
matter be referred back to the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee to
scrutinize the property statements of the petitioner and the matter be put
up before the Full Court thereafter. Consequently, the matter was gone
into by the Vigi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.