SC confirms compulsory retirement of Add. District & Sessions Judge; says decision of Administrative Committee of HC not binding

Read Order: Rajinder Goel vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Anr

LE Staff

New Delhi, August 5, 2021: Consenting with the view of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Supreme Court has confirmed the compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in view of the record indicating multiple unexplained transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money. 

A Division Bench of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the decision made by or conclusions arrived at by the Vigilance/Disciplinary/Administrative Committee discharging the petitioner from all charges, would not be binding on the Full Court and that the Full Court would be within its jurisdiction to take a different view in the matter. 

The order was passed against the petition challenging the recommendation made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge and acceptance of such recommendation by the Governor of Haryana with immediate effect.

The dispute arose pursuant to an enquiry conducted on the petitioner after his promotion in 2008 to the Haryana Superior Judicial Services, on certain complaints made by the Bar Association. This instigated in a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner observing heavy unexplained transactions in his bank account. This resulted in suspension of petitioner in addition to initiation of Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee proceedings against him, by the order of Full Court. 

Later on, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner accusing him of conduct against judicial ethics as he had deposited and withdrawn large sums of money without giving any specific reason for that. Although the petitioner explained the withdrawals & deposits in his bank account, the Inquiring Authority submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty of unexplained transactions.

The matter was looked into by the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee of the High Court 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 Bench Court of the High Court that rejected the report of the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee and passed an order compulsorily retiring the petitioner as a measure of penalty from the membership of Haryana Superior Judicial Service. 

The Division Bench found that for the convenience of transacting administrative business and for smooth functioning of day-to-day matters pertaining to control over the subordinate judiciary, it would be possible for the High Court to authorize and empower an Administrative Judge or an Administrative Committee of Judges to act on behalf of the Court. 

“It does not however mean that even in the absence of Rules authorizing or empowering the Committee, the decision made by or conclusions arrived at by the Committee would be binding on the Full Court or that the Full Court would not be within its jurisdiction to take a different view in the matter,” added the Bench. 

Hence, the Top Court stated that the action of the Full Court of the High Court was justified, and accordingly, rejected the petition.