- (1.) Petitioner by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the charge sheet dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure P-1) served on him and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. It is stated that the charge sheet served on the petitioner for allegedly violating Rule 15 of the Haryana Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966 ('Conduct Rules' - for short) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is completely mala fide, baseless and against the record.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed to the Haryana Judicial Services on 30.09.1987. He was promoted as Member of the Haryana Superior Judicial Services on 13.06.2001. At present he is posted as District Judge, Family Court, Hisar. According to the petitioner, he is performing his duties diligently and conscientiously. No complaint or inquiry of any nature has been filed or initiated against him during the course of his service. It is alleged that a completely misconceived and baseless charge sheet (Annexure P-1) was served on him on 30.04.2012 proposing to take action against him under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and appeal) Rules 1987 for the alleged violation of Rule 15 of the Conduct Rules. It has inter alia been alleged in the said charge sheet that the petitioner acquired number of residential and commercial properties not for his personal requirement but he was indulging in the business of sale/purchase of immovable properties. It is alleged that while he was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, a plot in Sushant Lok, Gurgaon was inherited by his wife in pursuance of Will dated 21.10.1998 from her mother to the exclusion of her mother's other daughters and sons. This transaction has been alleged to be a 'benami' one.
(3.) The petitioner it is further alleged inherited a residential plot in Amravati Enclave, near Panchkula by way of Will dated 12.02.2008 from his father. The Will it is alleged seemed to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. As per income tax returns of the petitioner's father, he was not in a financial position to purchase the plot worth Rs.14,14,273/-. Moreover, a plot at Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula was purchased by the wife of the petitioner from her relative for a consideration of Rs.9.00 lacs whereas the Collector rate for the same was Rs.47,25,500/-. Along with the charge sheet, a statement of imputation of misconduct was also served on the petitioner in respect of the same charges. On receiving the charge sheet, the petitioner filed his detailed reply (Annexure P-1/A), explaining the error of the charges levelled against him. It was explained that there was no violation of the Conduct Rules as whenever any immovable property was either acquired, inherited or sold by the petitioner or his spouse, the same was always done with the prior knowledge and with the sanction of the High Court. An explanation of the various transactions that have been alleged in the charge sheet have been mentioned in a tabulated form and which is supported by documents. Therefore, it is submitted that the charges against the petitioner that he had been indulging in sale/purchase of immovable property or that he had violated Rule 18 of the Conduct Rules stands disproved. It is submitted that a residential plot in Sector 31-32-A, Gurgaon only was allotted to the petitioner by the Haryana Urban Development Authority ('HUDA' for short) and that too by draw of lots under the quota for Government Employees. The said plot was sold in the year 1993. Except for the said plot, the petitioner had not purchased any property. The other properties were either inherited by him or his wife or had been purchased by the petitioner's wife of her own exclusively out of her own funds and that too with the prior knowledge or previous sanction of the High Court. The petitioner has not violated Rule 15 of the Conduct Rules. As regards the plot at Sushant Lok, Gurgaon in the name of his mother-in-law, it is submitted that his mother-in-law was an income tax payee.;