Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kabul Singh S/O Puran Singh vs The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak ... on 14 November, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No. 16137 of 2000 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 16137 of 2000 (O&M)
Date of decision : November 14, 2013
*****
Kabul Singh s/o Puran Singh
............Petitioner
Versus
The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar
...........Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
*****
Present: Mr. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
*****
MAHESH GROVER, J (ORAL)
C.M No. 15982 of 2013
C.M is allowed.
Documents are taken on record.
C.M No. 15502 of 2013 C.M is allowed.
Written statement filed on behalf of respondent is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CWP No. 16137 of 2000
This writ petition along with numerous others has been pending in this Court on the premise of a similarity and commonality Kukreja Ritu of question of law involved in all of them. The question of law which 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 16137 of 2000 (O&M) 2 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 Gurdwara Parbandhak 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 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 Kukreja Ritu 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 16137 of 2000 (O&M) 3 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 there under. 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 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 Kukreja Ritu 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 16137 of 2000 (O&M) 4 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 has questioned Annexure P-3, the order by which he has been removed from service as a Clerk. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the year 1985 and confirmed in the year 1987. He was accused of embezzling an amount of Rs. 72929/- and putting it to his own use. He faced criminal prosecution in this regard but was acquitted. He also faced criminal prosecution in the case registered against him under Section 302/34 IPC. In this case also he was acquitted after trial.
The petitioner has now challenged the order of removal from service primarily on two grounds:
(i) That no procedure of law was followed by the respondents to determine the charge against him regarding embezzlement and, therefore, the order of Kukreja Ritu 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 16137 of 2000 (O&M) 5 removal is bad in the eyes of Court.
(ii)Since he has been acquitted of the charges against him both in the cases of embezzlement of the amount and the charge of murder which were the only two grounds on which he was removed from service, the petitioner now deserves to be reinstated in service once the Court of competent jurisdiction has awarded him acquittal on both the said grounds.
The respondent has controverted the stand of the petitioner and has contended that the writ petition is hit by delay and latches considering the fact that the impugned order was passed in the year 1995 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2000. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 1338 of 2001 (Nachhattar Singh vs Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee), where Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that a limit of three years would be a period in which such proceedings can be initiated.
It has also been contended by the respondent that in view of grave nature of misconduct attributed to the petitioner, he is not fit to be retained in service and the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission had also disqualified the petitioner from becoming a Member or employee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara for a period of five years.
I have considered the contentions raised before me. The plea of the respondent that writ petition ought to have been preferred within a reasonable time within outer limit of three years would be a Kukreja Ritu 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 16137 of 2000 (O&M) 6 just plea and ordinarily the petition would have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, but at the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that there may be a reasonable impression in the mind of the petitioner that since his dismissal from service was on two grounds one pertaining to embezzlement of an amount and the other pertaining to his involvement in a murder case, he should await the clearance of his fair name in appropriate procedures. Therefore, granting this in favour of the petitioner, it is held that the petition would be maintainable and the delay in approaching this Court would be justified.
Having said that, the Court now embarks upon to examine another aspect of the matter as to whether the order of dismissal from service is sustainable on account of non-adherence to the settled principles of law and the rules by which the service conditions of the petitioner are governed.
Undeniably, no enquiry against the petitioner was ever held and this in itself would be a violation of Rule 4 Sub Clause ( b) of the Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the respondents to establish the charge of embezzlement de hors the criminal proceedings initiated against him. Having not done that, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, set aside.
The plea of the respondents that the petitioner was debarred from any service by the Sikh Gurudwara Judicial Commission would be of no avail to the respondents today as the Kukreja Ritu 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 16137 of 2000 (O&M) 7 period of five years has since elapsed. Resultantly, the petitioner would be entitled to be reinstatement in service, but, with no monetary consequences as he has not worked during this period. The respondents would be at liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner to establish the charge/charges against him and in case such a process indicates the involvement of the petitioner, needless to say they would be well within the rights to adopt course as suggested in the Rules to meet such delinquency.
Petition stands disposed of.
November 14, 2013 ( MAHESH GROVER )
ritu JUDGE
Kukreja Ritu
2013.11.27 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh