IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhmander Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and another ...Respondents Reserved on: 18.11.2025 Pronounced on: 17.12.2025 Uploaded on: 17.12.2025 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. R.K. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2-Rajinder Kaur, Former Member, Local Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Jaito, whereby the petitioners were dismissed from service as Clerk and Sewadar, respectively.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that petitioner No.1 was appointed as a Helper by respondent-SGPC vide order dated 04.01.2011. In the year

2015-16, he was promoted to the post of Clerk. Similarly, petitioner No.2 was appointed as Sewadar by respondent-SGPC in the year 2011. Both the petitioners were serving at Gurudwara Gangsar Sahib, Jaito, District Faridkot since the year 2005 as permanent employees of respondent-SGPC. The Gurudwara Sahib was under the administration of Local Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, managed by respondent No.2, however, in the year

2010, it came under direct control and supervision of respondent-SGPC.

3. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint to respondent-SGPC, that during the intervening night of 7/8.06.2021, the petitioners brought two unknown ladies to the Kalgidhar Niwas Inn at the aforesaid Gurudwara Sahib. It was further stated that they also brought objectionable items like liquor and meat to the Gurudwara premises. During the subsequent inspection conducted by the Gursanjukt Singh, member of the Flying Committee, liquor bottles, meat and condoms were recovered from the historical well situated near the Kalgidhar Niwas Inn. An FIR bearing No.0090 dated 15.06.2021 (Annexure P- 2) under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) was also registered by respondent No.2 at Police Station Jaito against them. Consequently, the petitioners were taken into custody on 16.06.2021. Further, vide impugned order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P-3), the petitioners were also dismissed from service.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a complaint was registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners merely on the basis of hearsay. The petitioners only found out about the said complaint when petitioner No.1 was transferred from Gurudwara Gangsar Sahib, Jaito to Takht Sri Keshgarh Sahib, Anandpur Sahib, Ropar. Further, they were dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) without issuing any show cause notice or providing an opportunity of being heard. Further, respondent-SGPC is a statutory authority falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in terms of Mewa Singh vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee 1999 AIR SC 688. The petitioners being employees of respondent-SGPC are covered by the Service Rules (Annexure P-4), in terms of Section 85 of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925. Rule 3D of the Service Rules require a charge sheet to be issued to the accused within a period of 15 days and subsequently, allow them a week’s time to file a reply. Thereafter, the complete case ought to be forwarded to the Head Office within a month for necessary action. Contrary to the Rules, the petitioners were issued termination orders, without following the prescribed procedure.

5. He further submitted that earlier, the petitioners had preferred CWP-20050-2021 titled ‘Sukhmander Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others’ seeking a similar relief. In furtherance thereof, notice of motion as