Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahavir Singh vs Sgpc on 14 November, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No. 7492 of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 7492 of 2001
Date of decision : November 14, 2013
*****
Mahavir Singh
............Petitioner
Versus
SGPC
...........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)
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 question 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 Kukreja Ritu termination are amenable to an alternative relief under Section 142 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 7492 of 2001 2 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 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 Kukreja Ritu 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 7492 of 2001 3 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 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 Kukreja Ritu 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 7492 of 2001 4 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 his order of dismissal from the service which had followed on account of his misconduct attributed to consumption of liquor habitually. Initially, the petitioner had been dismissed on same charges in the year 1996, but was reinstated on 4.4.2000 along with all consequential benefits when he had challenged his dismissal in this Court. Subsequently, on 7.8.2000, he was again suspended on the charge of consuming liquor while on duty and was dismissed on 4.5.2001. He is also alleged to have misbehaved with the devotees while being under the influence of liquor. A Sub Committee was formed in accordance with the Rules to look into the allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner admitted before the aforesaid Committee that he had indeed consumed liquor and the charges were correct. A DDR was also recorded against he petitioner under Section 290/510 of the Indian Penal Code and before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, he made a statement admitting his misconduct.
In view of the above, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appropriate procedure was not followed is unsustainable. Once the petitioner admits his misconduct and that too before the Court in judicial proceedings, I am of the view that there is hardly anything left with the petitioner to agitate his grievance Kukreja Ritu 2013.11.27 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 7492 of 2001 5 before this Court today, more particularly, when consumption of liquor itself disentitles a person from seeking employment with the SGPC. Such a conduct is not only against the Rules of the SGPC but is also contrary to the Sikh Maryada and thus the petitioner has been justifiably dismissed from service. No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
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