Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds action against judge who acquired properties in relatives' name

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently 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 [Ved Pal Gupta vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another]..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal ruled that the permission granted by the High Court on administrative side for purchase, sale or transfer of the property does not debar the disciplinary authority from inquiring into the genuineness of the transaction.“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,” the Court said..A full court of the High Court had recommended action against judicial officer Ved Pal Gupta in 2020, leading to his compulsory retirement. He challenged the decision in 2021.He was earlier charged with acquiring a number of properties in Gurgaon, Faridabad and Panchkula in the name of his relatives. This was allegedly done through corrupt means. Interestingly, at the time of entry into service, he only owned half of a small residential property in Haryana’s Gohana. .Considering the inquiry report, the Court found that the judicial officer’s mother-in-law had bought a property in 1998 and within six months bequeathed the same in favour of her daughter, the petitioner’s wife. “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,” it added..Thus, the Court concluded that the judicial officer’s wife was preferred and favoured for a valuable endowment, “although there is no recital” that her mother had some special love and affection for her.Moreover, the Court also said the judicial officer failed to prove that his mother-in-law had sufficient sources of income to purchase the property.Similarly, with regard to a property bought by his father in Panchkula, the Court said he was not a man of means. Further, it also took into account the glaring discrepancies in income tax record and ‘cash in hand’ of the petitioner’s father..The Court also took note of a property bought by the petitioner's wife in Panchkula. She had paid a paltry sum for it when the market value for it was much more, the Court found.“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 Court ordered..Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh and advocate Jatinder Singh Gill represented the petitioner.Advocates Ranjit Singh Kalra and Karan Sharma represented the High Court.Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented State of Haryana..[Read Judgment]