Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhai Harpal Singh And Another vs Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak ... on 28 November, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.5333 of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.5333 of 2001 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 28.11.2013
Bhai Harpal Singh and another PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar
... RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Ms.Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri 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) Dass Ghanshyam 2013.12.13 13:51
Whether the proceedings arising out of the said order of termination I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.5333 of 2001 -2- 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 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 Dass Ghanshyam 2013.12.13 13:51 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.5333 of 2001 -3- 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 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 petitioners pray for quashing of order Annexure P-8. Both of them faced charges essentially for dereliction of duty, as far as petitioner No.1 is concerned and fudging of records and dereliction of duty as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned. The charge against petitioner No.1 Bhai Harpal Singh was as below :-
"5. That on 19 August 2000, your work on the record on your position was verified by the investigating officers along with Shri Jaswinder Singh Halka Member of SGPC the Attendance Register under you charge were also checked . The attendance Dass Ghanshyam 2013.12.13 13:51 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.5333 of 2001 -4- of Shri Pyara Singh Parcharak was being marked by you in attendance register in an illegal manner, when this employee was taking rest in his house. After taking you along Pyara Singh was apprehended from his house. During those days according to the duty Pyara should have been in Village Kher for parchar. That you have used rubber and have over written in the attendance register. Bhai Pyara Singh in his statement has admitted that he had not performed any duty in the month of July and August, 2000, and had stayed in his house. You have given false diary report made false entry in the attendance register by rubbing them from which it becomes clear that of this has been done with your active connivance. You have done so with mala fide intention despite being on responsible post. In this respect there are details mention in the invstigating report. You do not deserve to be in service.
Show cause as to why not on the above charge holding you incapable of service you be not relieved from service."
Petitioner No.2, on the other hand, was charged as below :-
"5. That vide investigating report according to the diary report dated 9.8.2000 you were on duty in village Kher but on checking instead of doing your duty you were found present at house and in your statement you have admitted that in the month of July 2000, from 5 July 2000 to 15 July 2000, and from 27 July 2000 to 31 July, 2000 and in the month of August 2000 from 1.8.2000 to 9.8.2000 you have made false entries in the diary report. You have in connivance with Harpal Singh Dass Ghanshyam 2013.12.13 13:51 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.5333 of 2001 -5- Clerk cum Incharge have made false entries in attendance register and he is also being charge sheeted along with you being guilty. It is proved from this that you have committed this fraud for personal gain with intention to embezzle and to derive illegal gain. Therefore, you are fully guilty.
Show cause as to why not on the above charge holding you incapable of service you be not relieved from service."
Petitioner No.2 who was working as Parcharak was expected to go to the villages to propagate Sikh religion, but he instead of visiting the villages, concocted a record showing his presence in villages even though he had not gone there.
Petitioner No.1, on the other hand, who was acting in supervisory capacity, was expected to keep a check on the Parcharak i.e. petitioner No.2. Therefore, the charge against petitioner No.1 centres around his not effectively monitoring the work of petitioner No.2 Upon show cause notice having been issued, petitioner No.2 admitted his fault and Annexure R-2 is a testimony to this, very candidly conceding that he had prepared a false report and submitted it to petitioner No.1 for acceptance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this alleged confession is on account of coercion.
However, this plea of petitioner No.2 cannot be accepted and tested in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the assertion made by petitioner No.2 regarding his confession being the result of coercion and the counter-assertion made by the respondent who pleaded a confession by the petitioner No.2 on the basis of which it concluded the guilt of petitioner No.2 Dass Ghanshyam 2013.12.13 13:51 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.5333 of 2001 -6- without holding an enquiry, as there are visible constraints in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to evaluate such assertions and counter- assertions which centre around facts which need to be established on the basis of cogent evidence.
Therefore, the plea of petitioner No.2 in this regard cannot be ascertained in these proceedings. Petitioner No.2 would be at liberty to resort to appropriate proceedings, if so advised to raise this plea and impugn the order passed against him.
But in so far as writ proceedings are concerned, the instant writ petition is dismissed qua petitioner No.2 considering the fact that if the admission made by him was correct, there would obviously be no necessity for holding an enquiry to establish something which a delinquent admits.
In so far as the case of petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is on somewhat distinct footing. He was acting in supervisory capacity and monitoring the activities of petitioner No.2 and therefore, his only flaw, if the allegation against him are accepted, would be that he accepted the fabricated reports without any verification.
This is one matter which ought to have been established by way of holding an appropriate enquiry as to whether petitioner No.1 bonafidely accepted the records submitted by petitioner No.2 or whether there was any malice to it. Besides, it would also have to be established as to whether this was a solitary instance or petitioner No.1 was habitual of accepting these records without any verification altogether at any point of time. This Court has evaluated Annexure R-1 which is the alleged admission made by the said petitioner. By no stretch of imagination does it amount to admission of the charge by petitioner No.1 as it merely states that the responsibility to furnish information was that of petitioner No.2.
Dass Ghanshyam2013.12.13 13:51 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.5333 of 2001 -7-
That apart, whether this charge, even if accepted, would have been sufficient to lead to dismissal of the petitioner No.1 being centred around the solitary instance, would also be a moot question for which the respondents ought to have held an appropriate enquiry.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the petition qua petitioner No.1 deserves to be accepted. Ordered accordingly. The impugned order qua him is set aside. He is directed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service but without any monetary consequences since he has not worked for the said period. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of.
(MAHESH GROVER)
November 28, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.12.13 13:51
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh