P&H High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of District Judge Over Allegations Of Corrupt Property Acquisitions In Relative’s Names
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld its decision to compulsorily retire District Judge Ved Pal Gupta after he was accused of acquiring several properties through corrupt means since joining the judicial service in 1987.
In 2020, the High Court's full court had recommended action against Ved Pal Gupta, leading to his compulsory retirement. He challenged this decision in 2021. Gupta had been charged with acquiring multiple properties in Gurgaon, Faridabad, and Panchkula under suspicious circumstances, allegedly using corrupt methods. Notably, when Gupta entered service, he owned only half of a small residential property in Haryana’s Gohana.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal, affirmed that the permission granted by the High Court on the administrative side for the purchase, sale, or transfer of property did not exempt the disciplinary authority from examining the authenticity of such transactions.
The Court emphasized that, “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 considered the findings of the inquiry report, which revealed that Gupta’s mother-in-law had purchased a property in 1998, which she later transferred to Gupta’s wife through a will. It noted, “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 found that Gupta failed to establish that his mother-in-law had the financial means to purchase the property, and similarly, the property purchased by his father in Panchkula raised concerns about his financial standing. The Court noted significant discrepancies in the income tax records and the "cash in hand" of Gupta’s father, further calling into question the legitimacy of the transactions.
Additionally, the Court took note of another property acquired by Gupta’s wife in Panchkula. The purchase price paid for this property was much lower than its market value, raising further doubts about the transparency and integrity of the transaction.
Given the various findings, including the discrepancies in financial records and the lack of clarity regarding the sources of funds for these property transactions, the Court concluded that there was no basis for overturning the disciplinary authority's decision to retire Gupta.
Consequently, the Court dismissed Gupta's writ petition, upholding his compulsory retirement.
Cause Title: Ved Pal Gupta v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Anr., [2024:PHHC:167764-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh and Advocate Jatinder Singh Gill
Respondents: Advocates Ranjit Singh Kalra and Karan Sharma, Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan.
