Chandigarh, December 27:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision to compulsorily retire District Judge Ved Pal Gupta, who was accused of acquiring several properties under the names of his relatives after joining service in 1987. This ruling came from a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal, which emphasized that permission granted by the High Court on the administrative side for property transactions does not prevent the disciplinary authority from investigating the authenticity of the transactions.
The Court noted, “As per Employees Conduct Rules, 1965, the Govt. employee is prohibited from acquiring, disposing of 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 recommended action against Gupta, leading to his compulsory retirement. He challenged this decision in 2021.
Gupta was previously charged with acquiring multiple properties in Gurgaon, Faridabad, and Panchkula in the names of his relatives, allegedly through corrupt means. At the time of joining the service, he reportedly owned only half of a small residential property in Gohana, Haryana.
The inquiry revealed that Gupta’s mother-in-law had purchased a property in 1998 and within six months transferred it to her daughter, Gupta’s wife. The Court 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 concluded that the judicial officer’s wife was given a preferential and significant inheritance, “although there is no recital” indicating that her mother had any special affection for her.
The Court also criticized Gupta for failing to prove that his mother-in-law had the financial means to purchase the property. In a similar case involving a property in Panchkula purchased by his father, the Court found that the father lacked the means to make such a purchase. It further noted significant discrepancies in the petitioner’s father’s income tax records and cash holdings.
Regarding a property bought by Gupta’s wife in Panchkula, the Court pointed out that she had paid an unusually low price for the property when its market value was much higher.
With these findings, the Court concluded, “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.”
Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh and Advocate Jatinder Singh Gill represented Gupta, while Advocates Ranjit Singh Kalra and Karan Sharma appeared for the High Court. Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented the State of Haryana.
About The Author
