E-Paper
SC rejects former trial judge’s plea challenging compulsory retirement
Then additional sessions judge in Haryana had filed a petition against recommendations of the Punjab and Haryana high court
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea of a former additional sessions judge seeking quashing of a decision of the full court of the Punjab and Haryana high court to recommend his “compulsory retirement”, saying there were “multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money”.
The apex court judgement came on a plea of Rajinder Goel, the then additional sessions judge in Haryana, seeking setting aside of the recommendation of December 14, 2020, of the full court of the Punjab and Haryana high court recommending his compulsory retirement.
The former judge had also challenged the consequential order of January 5, 2021, of the Haryana governor accepting the recommendation alleging that the full court took the punitive action despite the fact that the two reports of the vigilance/disciplinary committee had exonerated him.
“Considering the facts and circumstances on record and in view of the record indicating that 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. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter,” said a bench of justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi in the judgement.
The apex court, which had advised the former judge to approach the high court with his grievances first, later did not accede to the request saying now it has already reserved the judgement after hearing the parties. “It must be stated that the petition was heard and the order was reserved on July 27, 2021. Next day, an application was preferred submitting that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the instant petition with further liberty to approach the high court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the suggestion made by this Court as stated earlier was not accepted after due instructions from the petitioner, we reject the prayer,” said justice Lalit who, wrote the judgement for the bench.
Goel, who had joined the Haryana Judicial Services in 1996, was promoted in 2008 to the Haryana Superior Judicial Services and later certain complaints, including the one by the Bar Association, were made against him.
A preliminary report of April 21, 2011, had found that there was no documentary evidence regarding allegations of land purchases. However, it had observed that there were “heavy unexplained bank transactions”.
Two reports of the vigilance/disciplinary committee found that the charges levelled against Goel were not proved and recommended that he be cleared of all the charges.
The matter was placed before the full court, which in its meeting, deliberated upon reports and rejected them. “It is resolved that major penalty of compulsory retirement be imposed upon the delinquent Officer under Rule 4(1)(viii) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987..., and a recommendation be made to the Government of Haryana that the Officer be compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect,” the full Court had opined. The top court also rejected the submission of Goel that the Full Court was bound by the findings of the vigilance or inquiry committees.
