Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh And Another vs Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak ... on 16 December, 2014
Author: Harinder Singh Sidhu
Bench: Harinder Singh Sidhu
CWP No. 17924 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 16.12.2014
CWP No. 17924 of 2011
Pargat Singh and another.
----Petitioners
Versus
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and anr.
-----Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. G.S. Bal,Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for
the respondents.
---
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
This petition has been filed praying for directions to quash the orders (Charge sheets Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively) whereby the petitioners were charge sheeted and the consequent order dated 17.06.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby their services were terminated.
Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Sewadar by the respondent- SGPC w.e.f. 20.06.1980. After serving in different capacities, he earned promotion as Manager of Gurudwara Pathshahi Chhewin, Chheharata. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Helper on 10.05.2007 by respondent- SGPC and transferred as such to Gurudwara Chheharata Sahib Pathshahi Chhewin, Amritsar on 26.04.2008.
DINESH KUMAR 2015.01.23 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17924 of 2011 -2-
It is pleaded that petitioner No.1 performed his duties as Manager with full dedication and responsibility. Certain persons who were working prior to posting of the petitioner wielded considerable influence in the running of the affairs of Gurudwara. The petitioner after joining there , checked their activities. Resultantly, they became inimical to him and made several false and frivolous complaints against the work and conduct of petitioner to the higher authorities which were found to be false. Therefore,they laid a trap to falsely implicate the petitioner in some criminal case, so that he could be defamed and removed from service. When the petitioner had gone to his under construction house on 31.03.2010 situated in village Fatahpur near Amritsar, he was encircled by 4-5 persons led by Subedar Sewa Singh. The petitioner was overpowered by them and made to lie on the ground. They forcibly poured liquor contained in a bottle in his mouth. Thereafter, a police party was summoned by them. Petitioner No.2, who was working under petitioner no.1, was also brought there and both the petitioners were taken to Police Station Kot Hakima from where they were taken for medical examination. It is pleaded that false allegations were levelled against the petitioners and while in police custody, they were forced to make confessions of having indulged in sexual activity with each other. Their signatures were forcibly taken on paper and their confession was prepared as dictated by SGPC Officers. Thereafter, the petitioners were suspended and charge sheet dated 15.09.2010 was served upon them.
DINESH KUMAR 2015.01.23 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17924 of 2011 -3-
In response thereto, the petitioners submitted detailed reply vide Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that while in police custody, they were forced to admit the charges levelled against them and to sign confession that was reduced into writing on the dictation of some officers of SGPC, who had accompanied them to the police station.
It has been averred that pursuant to the charge sheets(Annexures P-1 and P-2) an Enquiry Sub Committee was constituted but that had not conducted regular enquiry. The petitioners were asked to appear before Sub Committee and provided a computerized typed chit (Annexure P-5) in which it was mentioned that meeting of the Enquiry Committee was held on 19.05.2011 at 11 AM and the petitioners were heard to their satisfaction. Thereafter, the petitioners were served order dated 17.06.2011 vide which their services were dispensed with.
It is contended that the impugned order (Annexure P-6) terminating the services of the petitioners is illegal and against the service rules applicable to them. As per the Rules, before removal from service, written charges are required to be supplied to the employee in the shape of charge sheet and the employee is to be permitted to submit his reply in response thereto within a reasonable time. In case he denies the charges or claims for holding an enquiry or in case Executive Committee so desires, these charges shall be got investigated in the presence of the employee charge sheeted and in respect of all those items of charges, which he has not admitted, evidence shall be recorded in his presence and employee shall DINESH KUMAR 2015.01.23 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17924 of 2011 -4- be permitted to cross-examine such witnesses. Further, in case, the employee wishes to submit his defence evidence, the same shall also be entertained.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the procedure as envisaged in the Service Rules was not followed and merely on the basis of the alleged confessions made by them while they were in police custody, their services have been terminated.
It is further contended that the confessions of the petitioners are not voluntary and the petitioners were forced to make those confessions when they were in police custody and as such, no reliance can be placed on those. He has further submitted that it has been specifically averred in paragraphs no. 8 and 12 of the writ petition that the confessions which formed the basis of the termination order, was recorded by threatening the petitioners, who were then in police custody. The petitioners were threatened that they would be implicated in some serious crime if they did not sign the confessions. It is, thus, contended that other than the forced confessions there was no material before the punishing authorities to come to the conclusion that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the charge sheets Annexure P-1 and P-2 stood proved.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioners took alcohol and developed extra marital relationship which are prohibited in the Sikh religion. The petitioners have committed the acts of violation of Amrit and Rahat Maryada and as such DINESH KUMAR 2015.01.23 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17924 of 2011 -5- cannot continue on the post. Reliance is also placed on the report of Chemical Examiner in relation to petitioner no.1, as per which, Ethyl alcohol was detected in the samples of blood and urine of petitioner No.1 which were taken at the time of his Medical Examination on 01.04.2010.
It is further stated that as the petitioners have admitted their guilt, there was no need to held regular enquiry. In this context, reliance has been placed on a judgment dated 10.10.2014 passed by this Court in LPA No. 1291 of 2014 titled as Piara Singh vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the documents placed on the file carefully.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents. The alleged confessional statements of the petitioners annexed as R-1 and R-2 with the reply filed on behalf of the respondents indicate that the same were recorded on 01.04.2010 at 1.00 a.m. The petitioners have specifically stated that the alleged confessions were forcibly got recorded from them while they were in the custody of police at Police Station Kot Hakima and contend that these confessions were in fact dictated by senior officers of the respondent SGPC. It has nowhere come on record that when the confessions were recorded, the petitioners were not in the custody of the police. If that is so, these confessions are liable to be discarded as these had been made by the petitioners when they were in police custody. Hence, the confessional statements cannot be taken to be voluntary admission of guilt on the part of DINESH KUMAR 2015.01.23 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17924 of 2011 -6- the petitioners. The report of Chemical Examiner (Annexure R-3) regarding detection of the contents of Ethyl alcohol in the blood and urine of petitioner no.1 cannot form the sole basis of order of dismissal specially in the light of the serious allegations levelled by the petitioners that a bottle of liquor was put into his mouth when he was surrounded by 4-5 persons in his under construction house situated in village Fatehful near Amritsar on 31.03.2010.
In this view of the matter, there is no material on record to prove the allegations against the petitioners as alleged by the respondents authorities. The allegations do not stand proved and established as per the procedure as envisaged in the service Rules. Consequently, the orders of termination qua the petitioners cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the termination orders against the petitioners are quashed.
They are directed to be reinstated in service, with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry by placing them under suspension from the stage of issuance of charge sheets to them.
( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE 16.12.2014 dinesh DINESH KUMAR 2015.01.23 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh