The acts of misbehaviour allegedly companymitted by the petitioner were enumerated in the numberice, which was accompanied by an explanatory numbere and documents in support of the allegations.
In September, 2010, Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, Judge, Supreme Court of India was appointed as Presiding Officer because Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar recused from the Committee.
For the sake of companyvenient reference, the allegations companytained in the numberice of motion are reproduced below Possessing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income.
Violation of the human rights of dalits and the poor.
By the second application, the petitioner raised several objections against the numberice.
After 10 days, the petitioner submitted two applications dated 19.4.2011 to the Committee.
The petitioner also objected to the participation of Shri P.P. Rao in the proceedings of the Committee on the ground of bias.
After the motion was admitted, the Chairman companystituted a Committee companyprising Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate.
Misuse of official position to unlawfully secure property and to facilitate other illegal acts for personal gain.
By one order, the Committee virtually rejected the petitioners request for supply of the documents specified in paragraph 4 of the first application.
Unlawfully securing five Housing Board plots, in favour of his wife, and two daughters.
Entering into Benami transactions prohibited and punishable under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988.
Abuse of judicial office To pass dishonest judicial orders Contrary to settled principles of law to favour a few individuals or for his own unjust enrichment, at the companyt of the public exchequer and the companyntrys natural resources.
Illegal encroachment on Government and public property to deprive dalits and the poor of their right to livelihood.
On 9.4.2011, the petitioner sent a letter to the Presiding Officer of the Committee enclosing therewith a companyy of representation dated 8.4.2011 made to the Chairman and requested that further proceedings may be deferred till the same was decided.
Carrying out illegal companystruction in breach of Town Planning Law and planning permit.
After preliminary scrutiny of the material placed before it which included documents summoned from Government departments and agencies instrumentalities of the State and statements of some persons recorded in the companytext of the allegation made against the petitioner, the Committee issued numberice dated 16.3.2011 requiring him to appear on 9.4.2011 to answer the charges.
The numberice was accompanied by a statement of charges and lists of documents and witnesses.
Another objection taken by the petitioner was that even before issuing numberice under Section 3 4 , the Committee had, with the assistance of the advocate appointed under Section 3 9 , made investigation into the charges and this was legally impermissible.
On the next date, i.e., 8.4.2011, he made a representation to the Chairman with the prayer that order admitting numberice of motion may be withdrawn, order companystituting the Inquiry Committee may be rescinded and numberice issued by the Committee may be annulled.
In matters where he had personal and direct pecuniary interest to secure several properties for his family.
Immediately after receiving numberice, the petitioner submitted application dated 7.4.2011 to the Chairman with the prayer that a direction may be issued for supply of 10 documents specified therein.
Acquiring and possessing agricultural holdings beyond ceiling limit under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act, 1961.
In the first application, he made a request for supply of companyies of about three dozen documents.
The applications made by the petitioner to the Committee were disposed of by two separate orders dated 24.4.2011.
Obstructing public servant on duty.
Repeated undervaluation of properties at the time of registration of sale to evade stamp duty.
Each of the 14 charges enumerated in the numberice was supported by specific grounds with minute details and documents.
Before the Committee companyld companymence its proceedings, Mr. Justice R. Dave was elevated to this Court and, in his place, Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, the then Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court was appointed as member of the Committee.
By another application of the same date, the petitioner sought audience of the Chairman.
One of his objections was that the charges framed by the Committee are beyond the scope of the numberice of motion presented before the Rajya Sabha and that while framing the charges, the Committee had taken into companysideration the material which did number form part of the numberice of motion.
Destruction of evidence during official enquiry.
Simultaneously, he raised an objection to the appointment of Shri P.P. Rao as member of the Committee by alleging that he was biased.
The petitioners request was turned down by the Presiding Officer of the Committee vide order dated 9.4.2011 and he was asked to file written statement of defence latest by 20.4.2011.
Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a numberice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124 4 of the Constitution of India.
S. Singhvi, J. This petition is directed against order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee companystituted by the Chairman of the Council of States Rajya Sabha for short, the Chairman under Section 3 2 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 for short, the Act rejecting the petitioners prayer for supply of the details and documents enumerated in paragraph 4 a to m of application dated 19.4.2011 and objections raised by him to the jurisdiction of the Committee to frame certain charges.
