IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Pankaj Jain, J.
Kuldeep Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committee – Respondent
CWP No. 27281 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Certiorari - Termination of Services - Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 - [Article 226/227] - [Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925] - [Rules framed under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925] - [Mafatlal Narandas Barot Vs. J.D.Rathod, Divisional Controller, State Transport Mehsana and another, (1966) AIR (SC) 1364] - [Diljit Singh Bedi Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar (2011) AIR (SC) 1633] - The court discussed the violation of procedural law under the Rules framed under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 and the applicability of the principles of natural justice in cases where the delinquent employees admitted their guilt. The court relied on previous judgments to support its decision to dismiss the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' services were terminated as punishment for being involved in an incident of misconduct at a Gurudwara. The petitioners challenged the termination order, alleging violation of procedural law and hostile discrimination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had admitted their guilt in statements, and therefore, there was no need for a regular inquiry. The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the termination orders.
Issues: Violation of procedural law, hostile discrimination, applicability of principles of natural justice, admission of guilt by the delinquent employees.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the delinquent employee admits guilt, a regular inquiry may not be necessary. The court relied on previous judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the termination orders were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral) - Present petitions have been filed invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 29.07.2017 (Annexure P-3 & P4) whereby the services of petitioners have been terminated as punishment.
2. For convenience the facts are being taken from CWP No.27281 of 2017 titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandak Committee.
3. The petitioner was working as Member of Security Force at Shri Darbar Sahib Shri Amritsar. On 21.07.2017 he was accused of having misused the premises of Gurudwara Sahib. The FIR pertaining to the incident registered at the behest of Manager Takhat Sri Damdama Sahib, Talwandi Sabo (Bathinda) reads as under :-
'A complaint moved by Gurdeep Singh Manager, Takhat Sri Damdama Sahib, Talwandi Sabo (Bathinda) is received. The contents of the same are that: Office of Takhat Sri Damdama Sahib (Guru Kashi) Talwandi Sabo (Bathinda), No. 535 dated 22.07.2017. SHO, Police Station Talwandi Sabo (Bathinda). Sir, it is requested that Bhai Pal Singh helper son of Sh. Gurmail Singh is performing his duties at Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Niwas of Takhat Sri Damdama Sahib Talwandi Sabo (Bathinda). On 21.07.2017 at 9.00 PM, I went for checking to Guru Teg Bahadur Niwas as usually but on checking, the room No. 312 was closed. I opened the same and in the room a girl who stated her name Lovepreet Kaur Sidhu daughter of Amarnath Singh, resident of Gali No. 58 Bhagu Road, Pargat Singh son of Veer Singh Dera Kar Sewa Bhuri Wala, Pal Singh Helper son of Sh. Gurmail Singh, Dharminder Singh member security force son of Ram Singh and Kuldeep Singh member security force son of Nazar Singh were found in objectionable condition. The girl told that Dharminder Singh and Kuldeep Singh Bathinda and Dharampal Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of Gali No. 58 Bhagu Road Bathinda had brought me for one night against an amount of Rs. 6000/-(Rupees six thousand only). The abovesaid persons, while doing the said act, harmed the feelings of Sikh religious. Appropriate legal action be taken against that persons."
4. On the basis of the aforesaid incident the impugned order dated 29.07.2017 was passed. Counsel for the petitioners while attacking the same submits that not only the impugned order has been passed in violation of procedural law laid down under the Rules framed under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 but is also result of hostile discrimination against the petitioner as the third person involved in the aforesaid incident namely Pal Singh working as Helper has been retained in the service.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were apprehended by the police on 22.07.2017 and were admitted to bail on 26.07.2017 and the impugned order has been passed within 3 days i.e. on 29.07.2017 in utter violation of the procedure as prescribed under the Rules and thus the same cannot be sustained. Reliance is being placed upon Mafatlal Narandas Barot Vs. J.D.Rathod, Divisional Controller, State Transport Mehsana and another, (1966) AIR (SC) 1364 and Diljit Singh Bedi Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar (2011) AIR (SC) 1633.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a case wherein the delinquent employees admitted their guilt by suffering the statements which have been placed on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2 and thus in light of such statements suffered by them there was no need to conduct an inquiry as contemplated under the Rules. He thus submits that no fault can be found with respect to non-compliance of the procedural Rules as pleaded by the petitioner. He further submits that on the statement of Pal Singh, apprehended as Annexure R-3, it is evident that the role of Pal Singh is not at par with that of the petitioners and thus so far as the parity as claimed by the petitioners is concerned, the same is also misconceived. In support of his conte
Diljit Singh Bedi vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee
Mafatlal Narandas Barot vs. J.D.Rathod, Divisional Controller, State Transport Mehsana and another
Admission of guilt by delinquent employees may obviate the need for a regular inquiry.
The SGPC's Service Rules are statutory, making writ petitions against it maintainable; benefits can be withheld pending inquiry only if procedural compliance ensures no prejudice occurs.
Termination of employment must follow due process and adhere to principles of natural justice, including conducting a proper inquiry.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.