Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roop Singh vs Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak ... on 5 December, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.19324 of 2001
Date of Decision : 5.12.2013
Roop Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present: Ms.Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate
for the respondent.
.....
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This writ petition along with numerous others has been pending in this Court on the premise of a similarity and commonality of question of law involved in all of them. The questions of law which were propounded are as below :-
(1) Whether the services of an employee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the S.G.P.C.) can be terminated without following the process of law contained in the statute i.e. the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ?
(2) Whether the proceedings arising out of the said order of termination are amenable to an alternative relief under Section 142 of the Act ?
Upon due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid issues are no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Mewa Singh v. Shiromani Singh Daljit 2013.12.06 15:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document C.W.P.No.19324 of 2001 -2- Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee J.T. 1998(8) S.C. 503 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :-
"7. A mere reading of various provisions of the Act and rules set out above unmistakably show that SGPC is a creation of the statute and Service Rules framed by it in exercise of its statutory power have force of law. Any violation of the provision of the Act and the Rules will certainly make SGPC amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not find any basis for the SGPC to contend that no writ can be issued against it even if its action is contrary to the provision of law and the Rules framed thereunder. SGPC is a creation of the statute. It has to act within the four corners of the law constituting it and the rules framed by it under the powers conferred upon it under the Act. We do not think any discussion is needed to dispel this argument by the SGPC that it is immune from the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Language of Article 226 does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of its jurisdiction thereunder. Subba Rao, J. in Dwarkanath v. ITO (1965 (3) SCR 536) said that Article 226 "is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised."
8. We have examined the provisions of Section 142. It does not provide any alternative remedy to an employee of the Singh Daljit 2013.12.06 15:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document C.W.P.No.19324 of 2001 -3- SGPC, who has been dismissed or whose services have been terminated. section 142 does not cover any such type of case. In our view High Court in Ajaib Singh case rightly held that section 142 of the Act was inapplicable in the case and that petitioner therein could not seek remedy under Section 142, which does not provide any alternative remedy." In view of the above, it is now apposite to decide all the related matters individually to see whether any cause of grievance personal to the petitioner survives, as it would have to be determined whether the principles of natural justice have been complied with and the procedure enshrined in the statute intended to ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice have been violated or not.
The petitioner, who was working as Asstt.Granthi, was dismissed from service on 14.12.2000 on the charge that he had taken money from a devotee to perform the prayers which he did not. It was alleged against him that on 25.1.1999 he took Rs.1500/- for performing Akhand Path from 11.2.1999 to 13.2.1999.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this charge was sufficiently explained by the petitioner who also furnished receipts of the amount having been deposited and the necessary Akhand Path performed.
Learned counsel for the respondent then contended that in fact there was a typographical error in the chargesheet and the date ought to have been 25.1.2000 instead of 25.1.1999 and the dates of performing the Akhand Path would be 11.2.2000 to 13.2.2000. An affidavit has been filed to this extent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that this was never the charge against the petitioner and the allegations pertaining to Singh Daljit 2013.12.06 15:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document C.W.P.No.19324 of 2001 -4- the year 1999 were sufficiently explained, which ought to have taken care of the chargesheet issued to him. But with the affidavit coming on record it would require a separate explanation for which he was never given an opportunity as he was not confronted with it.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the view that if the explanation given by the respondent is accepted, then the chargesheet issued to the petitioner was having material inaccuracies which possibly might have deprived the petitioner of responding to it appropriately considering that the incident now sought to be projected is of the year 2000 and not of the year 1999. The principles of natural justice would require that the petitioner be confronted with a proper chargesheet which would contain the correct particulars so as to enable him to respond lest any prejudice creeps in.
The petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service but without any monetary consequences.
The respondents would be at liberty to confront the petitioner with the chargesheet with correct particulars and proceed against him in accordance with law.
5.12.2013 (MAHESH GROVER)
dss JUDGE
Singh Daljit
2013.12.06 15:16
I attest to the accuracy
of this document