IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

111 CWP-30098-2025 Date of Decision: February 02, 2026 Bhai Lakhwinder Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the resolution dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure P-16) whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It is further prayed that a direction be issued for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘SGPC’) initially as a temporary employee and was later issued an appointment letter dated 26.08.2006 (Annexure P-1). His services were subsequently regularized and made permanent vide an order dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure P-2). However, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure P- 3). The primary allegation in the charge sheet was that on 17.12.2013, the petitioner left his duty at 3:50 p.m., ten minutes prior to the scheduled time of 4:00 p.m., and was subsequently found in an inebriated condition. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply (Annexure P-4) categorically denying these allegations, asserting that he never consumed drugs or liquor and that the charges were entirely false and baseless.

3. Learned counsel argued that the dismissal order dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure P-5) was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that no formal inquiry was ever conducted, no evidence was recorded, and the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the extreme penalty of dismissal was imposed. While the dismissal order mentions a Sub-Committee report, the petitioner asserts that he was never associated with any such inquiry, nor was a copy of any report supplied to him despite requests (Annexure P-6). It is further submitted that the dismissal order was issued by the Manager of the Gurudwara, who is an authority lower than the appointing authority, thereby rendering the order legally unsustainable.

4. Regarding the appellate proceedings, the petitioner initially filed an appeal before the Executive Committee on 04.01.2016 (Annexure P- 7). Due to inaction by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court vide CWP No. 21387 of 2016, which was disposed of on 17.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal within two months. The respondents subsequently informed the petitioner that his appeal had already been dismissed on 22.03.2016, yet no copy of the resolution was provided until the petitioner sought it under the RTI Act. The petitioner then challenged this initial dismissal through CWP No. 16908 of 2017. On 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-12), this Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate order on the grounds that it was non-speaking and cryptic and directed the Appellate authority to pass a fresh order after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The written statement on behalf of the Respondents in CWP No. 16908 of 2017 has been placed on record as Annexure P-13.

5. In compliance with the order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P- 12), the Appellate Authority passed a fresh order and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide resolution dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure P-16). Learned counsel contended that the fresh resolution passed by the Appellate Authority repeats the same legal errors and fails to address the specific gr