|Saturday, January 22, 2000,
Sessions Judge: HC
CHANDIGARH, Jan 21 The Punjab and Haryana High Court today recommended to the Haryana Governor to retire Mr V.P. Chaudhary, Sessions Judge at Sonepat.
Under the rules governing judicial officers, the Governor is the appointing authority. For the purpose of retiring an officer prematurely or dismissing him from service, the High Court makes recommendations to the Governor.
The decision to retire Mr Chaudhary prematurely was taken at a full house meeting of the High Court Judges presided over by the Chief Justice.
Pending acceptance of its recommendation by the Governor, the High Court telephonically withdrew work from the court of Mr Chaudhary.
Informed sources reveal that the senior Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mr Varinder Singh, has been asked to officiate as Sessions Judge in place of Mr Chaudhary till a regular Sessions Judge is posted there.
The sources reveal that Mr Chaudhary was charge-sheeted by the High Court some time ago for allegedly violating the Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1966, as applicable to judicial officers in Haryana.
The charge sheet served on Mr Chaudhary says that while filing his property statements for the year 1983-84, he had not shown that his wife (Mrs Savitri Chaudhary) had been declared as owner of seven biswas of land at Narnaul by virtue of a civil suit judgement and decree of July 27, 1983. He was also charged with not informing the High Court of this fact even in his property statements for the subsequent years.
You have also concealed this fact that your wife had raised construction of a double-storey kothi and a single-storey house on this very land, the charge sheet alleges. He had also not stated in his property statements filed from time to time that his wife had executed a relinquished deed which was registered on September 20, 1996.
Again, in the property statement for the year 1995-96, the charge sheet runs, Mr Chaudhary had shown the property at Narnaul as land and the same was also shown as land in the subsequent property statements, except for the year 1995-96. In the property statement for the year 1995-96, you have mentioned that one room, kitchen, toilet and front boundary wall had been constructed on the said plot measuring 10 biswas of land but you have deliberately not intimated the expenditure incurred on the said construction. By suppressing information with regard to the expenditure incurred on the construction carried out on plot measuring 10 biswas of land at Narnaul amounts to misconduct on your part and thus, acted in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer, the charge sheet concluded.
The sources maintain
that the enquiry into the allegations was conducted by Mr
Justice R.L. Anand, a Judge of the High Court.The report
submitted by Mr Justice Anand camp up for consideration
before the full house meeting of the Judges yesterday.
|| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial |
| Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | In Spotlight |
50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations |
| 119 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail |