Unravel the complexities of a recent court case involving the imposition of compulsory retirement, as we delve into the court’s thorough legal analysis. Discover the nuances of the court’s decision-making process and the implications of the ruling. Stay tuned to understand the significance of the case and its impact on legal proceedings.
Facts
- The Inquiry Authority findings were accepted and the delinquent Officer was imposed with a major penalty of compulsory retirement under the Haryana Civil Services Rules.
- The order for compulsory retirement was issued on 05.01.2021 by the Competent Authority.
- The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the recommendation for compulsory retirement made by the Full Court of the High Court and the order passed by the Governor of Haryana accepting the recommendation.
- The petitioner, who joined Haryana Judicial Services in 1996 and was promoted in 2008, faced complaints and an enquiry regarding unexplained bank transactions and other allegations.
- Despite a preliminary report in 2011 finding no documentary evidence of land purchases, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner leading to suspension.
- The charge-sheet in 2012 accused the petitioner of conduct against judicial ethics for large unexplained monetary transactions.
- The Full Court in its meeting dated 14.12.2020 rejected the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee’s report and resolved to impose compulsory retirement on the petitioner.
- The petitioner explained that irregular deposits in his accounts were from maturity amounts of LIC policies, sale of properties acquired before entering judicial service, maturity of PPF accounts, and other bank bonds.
- The Inquiring Authority found the petitioner guilty of unexplained transactions.
- A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner replied to it.
- The Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee of the High Court found that the charges were not proved and recommended clearing the petitioner of all charges.
- The matter was placed before the Full Court, which referred it back to the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee to scrutinize property statements.
- The Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee submitted a report, rejecting the defence plea of retaining large cash amounts without adequate explanation.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- Shri Manoj Swarup, Senior Advocate confirmed that the petitioner wishes to pursue the writ petition under Article 32.
- Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench decision in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and another.
- In the Batuk Deo case, it was highlighted that two Committee reports dated 17.10.2018 and 18.12.2019 found no wrongdoing against the petitioner.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- High Courts can authorize an Administrative Judge or Committee for administrative convenience.
- The recommendation made by the Administrative Committee was found to be legal and constitutional.
- Without specific authorization, the Committee’s decision is not binding on the Full Court.
- In this case, the Full Court was justified in their view due to multiple transactions of significant amounts.
- The Full Court’s decision prevailed over the Committee’s recommendation in this instance.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Mr. Swarup’s submission was rejected
- No merit was found in the petition
- Court’s suggestion, not accepted by the petitioner, was rejected
- Petition heard and order reserved on 27.07.2021
- Application to withdraw petition with liberty to approach High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Case Title: RAJINDER GOEL Vs. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (2021 INSC 372)
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-000696 / 2021
