The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld its decision to compulsorily retire a District Judge who was charged with acquiring a number of properties through corrupt means after joining judicial service in 1987. A full court of the High Court had recommended action against the judicial officer in 2020, leading to his compulsory retirement. He challenged the decision in 2021.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed its earlier decision to forcefully retire a District Judge. The judge, Ved Pal Gupta, was accused of acquiring several properties after joining service in 1987.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal clarified that getting administrative permission from the High Court to buy, sell, or transfer property does not stop the authorities from checking whether the transactions were genuine.
The Court stated:
“As per Employees Conduct Rules, 1965, the Govt. employee is prohibited from acquiring, disposing any immovable property except with the knowledge of the prescribed authority. At the time of permission, the competent authority only examines it in context of knowledge and not in the context of genuine resources of the employee and its impact.”
In 2020, a full court of the High Court suggested action against Ved Pal Gupta, which led to his compulsory retirement. He challenged this decision in 2021 but failed to prove his case.
The judicial officer faced allegations of purchasing properties in Gurgaon, Faridabad, and Panchkula under the names of his relatives, allegedly through corrupt practices. At the time of joining service, he reportedly owned only half of a small house in Gohana, Haryana.
The inquiry revealed questionable property deals, including one involving his mother-in-law. According to the findings, his mother-in-law, Chameli Devi, purchased a property in 1998 and transferred it to her daughter (the petitioner’s wife) within six months.
The Court observed:
“On being called upon, the petitioner failed to produce the income tax record of his mother-in-law Smt. Chameli Devi. The enquiry officer also examined the Will and found that all other immovable properties have been bequeathed by late Smt. Chameli Devi in favour of her three sons and family members of predeceased son. The property located in Sushant Lok has been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner’s wife whereas the remaining four daughters have not been given any share in the immovable property except jewellery, which has been bequeathed in favour of all five daughters equally including petitioner’s wife.”
The Court concluded that his wife received special preference, stating:
“Although there is no recital that her mother had some special love and affection for her.”
The judicial officer could not prove that his mother-in-law had enough income to purchase the property. Similarly, regarding another property bought by his father in Panchkula, the Court noted that his father did not have sufficient financial means. The inquiry also uncovered major inconsistencies in the father’s income tax records and declared cash holdings.
Another property, bought by the officer’s wife in Panchkula, raised further doubts. The Court found that she paid a very low price compared to its actual market value. Highlighting these irregularities, the Court ruled:
“Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, there is no scope for interference in the opinion formed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.”
- The petitioner represented by Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh and Advocate Jatinder Singh Gill.
- Advocates Ranjit Singh Kalra and Karan Sharma argued for the High Court.
- Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented the State of Haryana.
CASE TITLE:
Ved Pal Gupta vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Corrupt Judge
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
