RAJINDER GOEL versus HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA & ANR. on 2 August 2021

O R D E R

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiahas been filed seeking appropriate writ,order or direction in the nature ofCertiorari quashing :-

a) the recommendation dated 14.12.2020 made by the Full Courtof the High Court[1] recommending compulsory retirement ofthe petitioner from the post of Additional District and SessionsJudge; and

b) order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Governor of Haryanaaccepting the recommendation made by the Full Court of theHigh Court[1]and directing compulsory retirement of the petitionerwith immediate effect.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Judicial Services on 16.02.1996and was promoted in 2008 to the Haryana Superior Judicial Services.Pursuant to certain complaints made against the petitioner, including onemade by the Bar Association, an enquiry was conducted, during thecourse of which the petitioner was asked to furnish statements regardinghis bank accounts and property for the years 2006 to 2009. A preliminaryreport dated 21.04.2011 found that there was no documentary evidenceregarding allegations of land purchases. It was, however, observed thatthere were “heavy unexplained bank transactions”. The report wasreviewed by the Administrative Committee of the High Court[1] on03.08.2011, which decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings againstthe petitioner and recommended that the petitioner be put undersuspension. On 05.08.2011 the Full Court ordered that the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee proceedings be initiated against the petitionerand that the petitioner be suspended till the proceedings were concluded.

3. On 26.04.2012, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioneraccusing him of conduct against judicial ethics inasmuch as he haddeposited and withdrawn large sums of money without giving any specificreason for that. The petitioner replied to those charges submitting interalia that those irregular deposits in his accounts were from the maturityamounts of his LIC policies, sale of properties which were acquired by 1 High Court of Punjab and Haryana A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Ahim before he entered the judicial service, maturity of PPF accounts andother bank bonds. The Inquiring Authority submitted a report on23.05.2016 finding the petitioner guilty of unexplained transactions.

4. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioneron 29.08.2016, which was replied to by the petitioner on 15.02.2017.BThe matter was looked into by the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee ofthe High Court[1] which found that the charges levelled against thepetitioner were not proved and recommended that he be cleared of allthe charges. The matter was, thereafter, placed before the Full Court ofthe High Court[1] which resolved in its meeting dated 04.02.2019 that thematter be referred back to the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee toCscrutinize the property statements of the petitioner and the matter be putup before the Full Court thereafter. Consequently, the matter was goneinto by the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee, which submitted its reporton 18.12.2019.

5. The matter was placed before the Full Court. The Full Court inDits meeting dated 14.12.2020, after full deliberation, rejected the reportdated 18.12.2019 of the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee and resolvedas under:- “The matter has been considered along with the note of theRegistrar General. After considering the Regular DepartmentalEEnquiry Report dated 23.05.2016, reply dated 15.02.2017 submittedby the officer to the show cause notice dated 29.08.2016, both onthe aspect of acceptance of Enquiry Report as well as the proposedpenalty, we find that the Inquiry Authority has rightly rejected, forthe reasons recorded, the defence plea raised by the delinquentFOfficer regarding retaining huge amounts of cash in hand for thesubstantial periods in the financial years concerned, after admittingthe withdrawals and deposits from the accounts specified in theArticles of Charge, which required no further proof. Accordingly,the report dated 17.10.2018 as well as the decision dated18.12.2019 of the Hon’ble Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee areGnot accepted. Keeping in view the findings of the Inquiry Authority,which have been hereby accepted, the gravity of the matter andstandards of ethics required of a Senior Judicial Officer, it isresolved that major penalty of compulsory retirement be imposedupon the delinquent Officer under Rule 4(1)(viii) of the HaryanaHCivil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987

[Corresponding Rule 4(b)(v) of the Haryana Civil Services(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016] and a recommendation bemade to the Government of Haryana that the Officer becompulsorily retired from service with immediate effect.”

6. An order was, thereafter, issued by the Competent Authorityon 05.01.2021 compulsorily retiring the petitioner as a measure of penaltyfrom the membership of Haryana Superior Judicial Service.

7. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petitionunder Article 32 of the Constitution and since a remedy under Article226 of the Constitution was available to him, it was suggested that a writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court wouldgive him adequate and fuller remedy.

8. Shri Manoj Swarup, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, afterseeking instructions from his client made it clear that the petitioner wouldlike to pursue the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of theConstitution. We,therefore, proceeded to hear the learned counsel forthe petitioner on merits.

9. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Senior Advocate submitted :-

a) Two Reports of the Committee dated 17.10.2018 and18.12.2019 had found nothing against the petitioner. In thecircumstances, the Full Court could not and ought not to haverecommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner; and

b) Once the Committee had concluded that there was nothingagainst the petitioner, such conclusion was “for and on behalf ofthe Full Court” of the High Court. Reliance in support of thesubmission was placed on the Constitution Bench decision of thisCourt in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathiand another[2].

10. In Batuk Deo[2], Rule 1 of Chapter III of Rules of Court, 1952framed by the Allahabad High Court specifically stated that theAdministrative Committee appointed in terms of said Rule ‘shall actfor the Court’. In the context of said Rule, this Court observed as under:- “18. … … …We have pointed out above that the amplitude ofthe power conferred by Article 235, the imperative need that the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHigh Courts must be enabled to transact their administrativebusiness more conveniently and an awareness of the realities ofthe situation, particularly of the practical difficulties involved in aconsideration by the whole court, even by circulation, of everyday-to-day matter pertaining to control over the District andsubordinate Courts, lead to the conclusion that by rules framedBunder Article 235 of the Constitution the High Courts ought to beconceded the power to authorise an Administrative Judge or anAdministrative Committee of Judges to act on behalf of the Court.Accordingly, we uphold the minority judgment of the Full Benchthat Rule 1 of Chapter 3 of the 1952 Rules framed by theCAllahabad High Court is within the framework of Article 235.The recommendation made by the Administrative Committee thatthe respondent should be compulsorily retired cannot thereforebe said to suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity.”

11. The quoted portion from para 18 of the decision discloses thatDthis Court accepted that for the convenience of transacting administrativebusiness and for smooth functioning of day-to-day matters pertaining tocontrol over the subordinate judiciary, it would be possible for the HighCourt to authorize and empower an Administrative Judge or anAdministrative Committee of Judges to act on behalf of the Court. Itwas in the context of such specific authorization in favour of theEAdministrative Committee in terms of Rule 1 of Chapter III of Rules ofCourt, 1952, framed by the High Court, that the recommendations madeby the Administrative Committee were found to be without anyconstitutional infirmity.

12. It does not however mean that even in the absence of RulesFauthorizing or empowering the Committee, the decision made by orconclusions arrived at by the Committee would be binding on the FullCourt or that the Full Court would not be within its jurisdiction to take adifferent view in the matter. The submission advanced by Mr. Swaruptherefore, must be rejected.G

13. Considering the facts and circumstances on record and inview of the record indicating that there were multiple transactions showingdeposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money, it cannot besaid that the Full Court was not justified in taking the view that it did.We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter.

H

RAJINDER GOEL v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ANDHARYANA & ANR. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

14. It must be stated that the petition was heard and the orderwas reserved on 27.07.2021. Next day an application was preferredsubmitting that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the instant petitionwith further liberty to approach the High Court invoking its jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the suggestion madeby this Court as stated earlier was not accepted after due instructionsfrom the petitioner, we reject the prayer.

15. As we see no merit in this petition, the same is accordinglyrejected.

Devika Gujral

Writ Petition rejected.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H