Chandigarh, Dec 28: 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 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.
|