Rajinder Goel vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

2 August 2021

Case No.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 696 of 2021

Bench

Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi

Citation

[2021] 8 S.C.R. 314 : 2021 INSC 372

Headnote

High Court: Judicial officer – Unexplained huge financial transactions – Recommendation made by the Full Court of the High Court for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge – On appeal, held: There were multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money, it cannot be said that the Full Court was not justified in taking the view that it did – Judicial service – Judicial ethics – Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1987.

Rules of the Court, 1952: Chapter III; rule 1 – Recommendation made by Administrative Committee – Jurisdiction of Full Court to take different view in the matter – Scope of – Discussed.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and another (1978) 2 SCC 102 : [1978] 3 SCR 131–

referred to.

The following Order of the Court was passed: O R D E R UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking appropriate writ,order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing :a) the recommendation dated 14.12.2020 made by the Full Court of the High Court1 recommending compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge; and b) order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Governor of Haryana accepting the recommendation made by the Full Court of the High Court1and directing compulsory ret

View Subscription Plans →