Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh vs Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak ... on 19 November, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.19343 of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.19343of 2001 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 19.11.2013
Baldev Singh PETITIONER
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.
C.M. No.16248 of 2013 is allowed as prayed for.
Main Case 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 Dass Ghanshyam 2013.11.22 10:46 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.19343 of 2001 -2- 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 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 Dass Ghanshyam 2013.11.22 10:46 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.19343 of 2001 -3- 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 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 was alleged to be in possession of a few grams of opium regarding which he faced proceedings under the provisions of Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act in which he was acquitted of the charge on 5.3.2001.
Concededly, no enquiry was held by the respondents before dismissing him from service and the fact was not independently established. If that be so, then the acquittal from the charge against him would certainly entitle him for re-consideration of his case by the respondents regarding their decision to Dass Ghanshyam 2013.11.22 10:46 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.19343 of 2001 -4- dismiss him from service which was solely on the ground of his having been found in possession of opium.
Therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-1 is set aside. At this stage, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation on 26.7.2004, had he been in service.
Since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service but without any monetary consequences, since he has not worked for that period. However, the petitioner would only be entitled to notional benefits such as gratuity and other retiral dues upon his reinstatement.
The petition stands allowed.
(MAHESH GROVER)
November 19, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.11.22 10:46
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh