Punjab-Haryana High Court
Makhan Singh vs S.G.J.C. And Another on 5 December, 2014
Author: Harinder Singh Sidhu
Bench: Harinder Singh Sidhu
CWP-16273-2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16273 of 2012
Date of decision: December 05, 2014
Makhan Singh .... Petitioner
Versu
Sikh Gurudwara Judicial Commission
and another .... Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: Mr. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S.Guliani, Advocate
for the respondents.
--
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
The petitioner has filed present writ petition praying for directions to quash Orders Annexures P-6 and P-7, dated 25.02.2012 and 27.02.2012, respectively, vide which he has been dismissed from service.
The petitioner was appointed as Manager vide Resolution No.5 dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) by Respondent No.2 which is a notified Sikh Gurudwara under Section 87 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (for short `the Act').
CWP-16273-2012 [2] On 16.01.2011 Resolution No.25 was passed, whereby, he was confirmed in service w.e.f. 01-01-2011. Thereafter, he was also given special increment vide Resolution No.28 dated 05.07.2011.
It has been averred by the petitioner that on account of inter-se dispute amongst members of the respondent No.2, a petition was filed under Section 142 of the Act against President of the above mentioned committee on 17.08.2011 by four members of the committee seeking his removal from office.
The Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission ( for short `the Commission') vide its interim order dated 03.11.2011 appointed a Receiver to manage the affairs of the Gurudwara. The President, the Vice President and other members of the Committee were restrained from working on their posts. It was directed that the Receiver shall act as the Committee of Management for the purpose of administration of Gurdwara affairs and its properties. The Receiver sought and was granted approval by the Commission on 25.2.2012 for the dismissal of the petitioner from service for dereliction of duty CWP-16273-2012 [3] and not being present on duty despite repeated directions. Consequently, vide order dated 27.02.2012 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was dismissed from service.
The interim order of the Commission appointing a Receiver was challenged in the High Court by filing Civil Revision No.1389 of 2012 and vide order dated 02.03.2012 the said order appointing Receiver was stayed. Consequently, Sh. Baldev Singh again took over as President of the said Committee on 03.03.2012 (Annexure P-9). Vide Order No.23 dated 03.03.2012, it was ordered by the President that the petitioner shall work as Manager and continue to perform duty with due diligence. The petitioner started working as Manager immediately thereafter and was paid salary for the months of February, March and April, 2012, but inexplicably, thereafter payment of salary to him was stopped and he was not allowed to mark his presence in the register. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.07.2012 to respondent No. 2 that he be permitted to perform his duties, but to no avail.
Consequently, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for directions to quash the order dated CWP-16273-2012 [4] 25.2.2012 and 27.2.2012 and for directions to the respondents to allow him to perform his duties and pay him salary for the period May 2012 onwards.
In the reply filed on the behalf of respondent No.2, it is stated that the petitioner had been appointed by Sh.Baldev Singh, Ex.President of the Gurdwara Committee without following the procedure of appointment and in the absence of quorum as required by Section 100 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act. The initial order of his appointment is illegal and not binding on the respondents. It is averred that the Committee of Management never passed any resolution for appointment of the petitioner. It is further stated that four members out of five members of the Committee of Management instituted a petition under Section 142 of the Act against the President Sh. Baldev Singh on 17.11.2011 praying that he be disqualified from holding any office. In para No.4 of that petition, it had been specifically stated that Sh.Baldev Singh had been illegally entering resolutions in the proceedings book, whereas, no such resolutions had been passed. The Commission vide its order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure R-2), held that CWP-16273-2012 [5] Sh.Baldev Singh was guilty of committing acts of neglect of duty and abuse of powers. He was disqualified for a period of five years and removed from the office of President of the Committee. Thereafter, S. Hakam Singh has been elected President of the Committee.
It is also averred that the petitioner is a "Patit" (with cut hair). As per the Service Rules, the Administrative Scheme and Sikh Maryada, no person can be an employee of any Gurdwara under the Act who is not an Amritdhari Sikh. It is stated that that the petitioner and Sh. Baldev Singh Ex- President of the Committee had joined hands to illegally draw salary in the name of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner had never been working, but was running his business under the name and style of Makhan Studio Uba .
Replication has been filed by the petitioner, in which, the averments made in the written statement have been denied. It has been stated that against the order of the Commission disqualifying him for five years, Sh.Baldev Singh, Ex. President has filed FAO No. 5427 of 2012 which was admitted on 21.2.2013 and his disqualification has been CWP-16273-2012 [6] stayed during the pendency of the appeal. It has also been asserted that the resolutions appointing the petitioner have been passed in the presence of the President and three members of the Committee, and the requisite quorum was of three members. The allegations that the petitioner was a `Patit' have been denied by making reference to two documents Annexures P-14 and P-15. Annexure P-14 is a Registration Letter of the Dharam Parchar Committee of the SGPC, vide which, the petitioner has been appointed/ designated as Chief Sewadar, Dharam Parchar Lehar of Village Ubha, District Mansa and assigned the responsibility of propagation of Gurmat and its teaching amongst the youth and Sikh Sangat. Annexure P-15 dated 26.6.2011 certifies that the petitioner partook of Amrit from the Punj Piaras on that date. The petitioner has also annexed with the replication his recent photographs depicting him to be an Amritdhari Sikh and states that the photograph annexed with the written statement was an old one.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been validly appointed by a proper CWP-16273-2012 [7] resolution of the Local Gurdwara Committee dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P-1). He was duly confirmed on the said post vide resolution dated 16.1.2011 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, he was working with utmost dedication and devotion towards duty. He was unceremoniously removed by order dated 27.2.2012 passed by the Receiver. Neither any show cause notice or charge-sheet was ever issued to him, nor any enquiry held to determine the charges against him. The order of removal was in utter violation of the service rules. Further, it is urged that the Receiver was wrongly appointed by the Commission by way of interim order dated 3.11.2011 (Annexure P-4), whereas, the settled legal position is that the Commission has no jurisdiction to pass an interim order as held by this Court in the case of Sucha Singh Langah Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2004 Vol.1 RCR (Civil) 245. Subsequently, the order of the Commission appointing the Receiver was stayed by the High Court vide order dated 2.3.2012 passed in Civil Revision No.1389 of 2012 (Annexure P-8). It is contended that as the Receiver had been wrongly appointed, therefore, any order passed by him is null and void.
CWP-16273-2012 [8] To the contrary, Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was not valid. The Management Committee never passed any resolution for appointment of the petitioner and all the orders and proceedings recorded by Baldev Singh Ex.President of the Committee are concocted and forged. It was on account of his misdeeds that four members of the Committee petitioned the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission for his removal, and, ultimately, vide order dated 25.8.2012 he was disqualified for a period of five years.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record.
The contention of the petitioner that no show cause notice or charge-sheet was ever issued and that no enquiry was conducted, has not been denied. It is only contended that the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal and that the Management Committee never passed any resolution for his appointment and all the orders and proceedings recorded by Sh.Baldev Singh, Ex. President of the Committee are concocted and forged.
CWP-16273-2012 [9] It is not possible to accept this contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has annexed the resolution dated 16.1.2011 (Annexure P-2), whereby, his services were confirmed and the previous proceedings of the Committee were also confirmed. This resolution shows the presence of the President Sh. Baldev Singh, the Vice President Darshan Singh and one Member Chamkaur Singh. Two members Jagan Singh and Makhan Singh are shown as absent. Extracts (Annexure P-3) are the proceedings of the Committee dated 5.7.2011, whereby, the petitioner and another Granthi Sandeep Singh were granted one special increment. This meeting is also shown to have been attended by the President, the Vice President and one member.
Moreover, in the petition under Section 142 of the Act dated 17.8.2011 while there is a detailed reference to all the alleged acts and omission and commission on the part of the Sh. Baldev Singh Ex. President, there is no averment with regard to the resolutions P-1 to P-3, which are in relation to the appointment and confirmation of the petitioner, that they are false and fabricated documents. This omission is, particularly, CWP-16273-2012 [10] significant in the light of the fact that Sh.Darshan Singh, Vice President, and Sh.Chamkaur Singh Member who are shown to have participated in the meetings where the petitioner was appointed and confirmed, are the applicants/petitioners in the said Section 142 petition. If their signatures and presence in those meetings had been wrongly recorded, it would have found mention in the petition under Section 142 of the Act.
In the face of this, it is not possible to accept the bald averment in the written statement of respondent No.2 that the resolutions P-1 to P-3 are false, fabricated or concocted and the initial appointment of the petitioner is not valid.
If that is so, then the orders 25.2.2012 and 27.2.2012, Annexures P-6 and P-7, respectively, according approval for the dismissal of the petitioner and dismissing him from service are liable to be held to be void and illegal having been passed without issuing any show cause notice and conducting an enquiry as required by the service rules and the elementary principles of natural justice.
In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to consider and decide the other contentions of the Ld. Counsel CWP-16273-2012 [11] for the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Communication/Orders dated 25.02.2012 and 27.02.2012 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) are quashed and it is directed that the petitioner be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent No.2 from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.04.2010. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including salary, etc. December 05, 2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) gian JUDGE GIANENDER KUMAR 2014.12.08 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document