HC upholds decision to compulsorily retire Haryana judge

The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld its decision taken on the administrative side to compulsorily retire a Haryana district and sessions judge. The high court dismissed the plea from Ved Pal Gupta, filed in 2021, wherein he had challenged a charge sheet issued against him for acquiring properties more than his known sources of income, a recommendation of the disciplinary committee and a full court decision of compulsorily retire him.

Gupta was appointed as HCS (judicial) officer on September 30, 1987, and went on to become district and sessions judge. In February 2011, inquiry was initiated against him regarding the immovable properties acquired by him. In 2012, he was issued a charge sheet. His case was probed by a high court judge and in 2017, the disciplinary committee of the HC judge indicted him in his report. Based on the report a decision was taken by the full court of HC to compulsorily retire him.

He challenged the same in 2021, arguing that properties were acquired after obtaining permission from the high court and various other counts.

As per the proceedings, when he joined service in 1987, he had only one immovable property 1/2 share in one double-storeyed building in Gohana. After joining the service, he acquired several plots in Gurugram, Faridabad, Panchkula and some other places worth crores.

“The permission granted by the high court on the administrative side to purchase, sell, or transfer the property does not debar the disciplinary authority to inquire into the genuineness of the transaction. As per Employees Conduct Rules, 1965, the government employee is prohibited from acquiring, or disposing of any immovable property except with the knowledge of the prescribed authority. At the time of permission, the competent authority only examines it in the context of knowledge and not in the context of genuine resources of the employee and its impact,” the court said while dismissing his plea.

The court observed that the conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority were based upon material produced on the file and not merely based on inference as projected by him in his arguments.

Referring to it a property acquired in Gurugram, the inquiry panel had found that the mother-in-law of the petitioner purchased the property in April 1998 at Sushant Lok and within six months, she bequeathed the same in favour of her daughter (Gupta’s wife) even as she had three sons. When asked for the mother-in-law’s income tax record was not produced and while examining her it was found that all other immovable properties she bequeathed in favour of her three sons and other daughters, were also not given a share in her properties.

In the case of a plot bought at Amravati Enclave, Panchkula, by the officer’s father, the panel found that his father was not a man of means who could invest ₹9 lakh for the same between 1999-2006 when he purchased two shops in Jaipur, a house in Azadpur, Delhi and a shop at Rohtak. “As per income tax return, his net income in the assessment year 2000-2001 to 2008-09 was ₹14.14 lakh whereas he invested much more than the assessed income,” the pane had found.

The panel also found that the income tax record produced by the petitioner in the beginning and the one produced subsequently was at variance and the returns have been fabricated or manipulated to show the availability of the funds. It was also found that there is a discrepancy in the ‘cash in hand’, the panel said.

“The petitioner’s father had existing liability of more than ₹17 lakh, however, he was shown to be investing in various properties, including a plot in Panchkula, two shops in Jaipur, a house in Azadpur and a shop in Rohtak. He executed three wills within a period of a fortnight in favour of his three children, including the petitioner, who are all judicial officers,” the panel said, adding that the father, Ram Sarup, has five sons and two daughters, out of which three are judicial officers, two in Haryana and one in Delhi.

The panel had also found that Gupta’s wife, who was a homemaker, purchased a 300 square-yard plot in Mansa Devi, which abuts Chandigarh for a paltry sum of ₹9 lakh when as per the collector’s rate the price of the plot comes to be ₹47 lakh, whereas its market value was ₹1 crore, it found. It was bought through family members of his wife, the panel found.