LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajinder Goel v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2021 INSC 372Decided 2 Aug 2021
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 696 of 2021
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

The petitioner, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Haryana, faced a departmental inquiry after complaints (including one from the local Bar Association) about large, unexplained deposits and withdrawals in his bank accounts. A disciplinary inquiry found him guilty of unexplained financial transactions in 2016; although the High Court's own Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee later recommended clearing him of the charges, the Full Court of the High Court rejected that recommendation in December 2020 and resolved to recommend his compulsory retirement, which the Governor of Haryana then ordered. The judge approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, arguing that once the Committee had found nothing against him, that finding should bind the Full Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, rejecting the argument that the Disciplinary Committee's favourable report was binding on the Full Court. Distinguishing an earlier Constitution Bench ruling (Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi) where a specific court rule had expressly authorised a committee to act "for" the Full Court, the Court held that in the absence of such an express rule, a Full Court remains free to take a different view than its own committee. On the merits, the Court found the record of multiple substantial bank deposits and withdrawals justified the Full Court's conclusion, and saw no reason to interfere with its decision to impose compulsory retirement. The Court also noted that the petitioner had, after the hearing concluded and judgment was reserved, tried to withdraw the petition to instead approach the High Court: a request the Court declined to permit, since the petitioner had earlier insisted on pursuing the Supreme Court petition directly.

Lesson Learnt

A disciplinary or vigilance committee's recommendation is only advisory to the final decision-making body (here, the Full Court of a High Court) unless a specific rule makes it binding; a judicial officer facing serious, unexplained financial irregularities cannot expect a favourable committee report alone to override the institution's final disciplinary decision.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case