The Supreme Court of India on 2nd august, 2021 rejected the writ petition, writ petition (Civil) No 696 of 2021 filed by Mr. Rajinder Goel, ex Additional District & Sessions Judge challenging the order of the High Court ordering the compulsory retirement on the basis of the report of the disciplinary committee which found the petitioner guilty of holding large sum of money and huge unexplained transactions.  

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana to clean up its subordinate judiciary began proceedings against its own judicial officers. This was the first time recalled in the past that a high court has taken such a step and this shows that the High Court will be having zero tolerance for any kind of indiscipline, complacency and other factors in the subordinate judiciary.  Its Full Court, comprising the Chief Justice & the other Judges, has compulsorily retired 2 Additional District & Sessions Judges. The functioning of 2 district & sessions judges has come under the High Court scanner with the ordering of regular inquiries against them.  The petitioner Mr. Rajinder Goel was the Additional District and Sessions Judge. Certain complaints were made, including one made by the Bar Association, an enquiry was conducted, during the course of which the petitioner was asked to furnish statements regarding his bank accounts and property for the years 2006 to 2009. 

A preliminary report dated 21.04.2011 found that there was no documentary evidence regarding allegations of land purchases. It was, however, observed that there were “heavy unexplained bank transactions.” The Full court of the high court suggested the officer to be suspended until the proceedings are over. The matter was looked into by the Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee of the High Court which found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved and recommended that he be cleared of all the charges. The full court yet insisted that the matter be looked into and scrutinized once again by the Disciplinary committee. The disciplinary committee found the petitioner guilty of holding large sum of money and huge unexplained transactions and therefore ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 

This act of the high court was challenged by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Apex Court. The issues involved in this case before the Apex Court were as follows:

1. Whether the Additional District and Sessions Judge Rajinder Goel is guilty of all the charges put upon him?
2. If or not the High Court was accurate in its decision of the retirement of the petitioner with immediate effect?
3. Whether the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable before the Apex Court?

The main contention raised by the petitioner in his arguments was that the reports of the disciplinary committee did not have any evidence of any wrong doings by the petitioner and hence immediate retirement of the petitioner is not justified. He said that without concrete proof or evidence of any wrong doing such a harsh step of immediate retirement should not be taken. It was argued that once the Committee had concluded in its reports that there was no evidence against the petitioner, such conclusion was “for and on behalf of the Full Court” of the High Court. This submission was placed on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and another. Hence, this decision of the court was not at all justified argued the petitioners advocate.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that the records indicate that there were multiple transactions of deposits and withdrawals of a substantial amount of money which cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that the Full Court made a mistake in the view it held.