Case Law Details
Rajinder Goel Vs High Court Of Punjab And Haryana & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
It cannot be denied that there is rampant corruption in all the three pillars of our Constitution. No wonder India is ranked very high in World Corruption Perception Index. However, the number of cases of corruption which are booked under the provisions of Anti Corruption Act are almost negligible. Perhaps the Anti Corruption Laws are toothless and are not effective in containing the wide spread corruption in our country.
The Apex Court recently in Rajinder Goel vs High Court of Punjab And Haryana in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 696 of 2021 decided on 2 August, 2021 dealt with the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for annulling recommendation by the Full Court of the High Court for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge with immediate effect.
The brief facts are that the petitioner joined Haryana Judicial Services in 1996 and was promoted in 2008 to the Haryana Superior Judicial Services. Certain complaints were made against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was directed to furnish statements regarding his bank accounts and property for the years 2006 to 2009. The preliminary report in 2011 found that there was no documentary evidence with regards to the allegations of land purchases but confirmed that there were “heavy unexplained bank transactions”. The Administrative Committee of the High Court decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and recommended for suspension of the petitioner. Thereafter the Full Court ordered that the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee proceedings be initiated against the petitioner and that the petitioner be kept under suspension till the completion of said proceedings.
In 2012, the petitioner was charge-sheeted accusing him of financial & judicial misconduct as he had deposited and withdrawn large sums of money without any reason or rhyme. The explanations of the petitioner were not substantiated to the satisfaction of the enquiry committee which found the petitioner guilty of unexplained transactions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
