Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak ... on 28 November, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.12215 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 28.11.2013
Gurdeep Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present: Ms.Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate
for the respondent.
.....
MAHESH GROVER, J.
C.M.No.16969 of 2013 is allowed as prayed for. 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) 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 Singh Daljit 2013.12.13 15:38 I attest to the accuracy of this document C.W.P.No.12215 of 2005 (O&M) -2- 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 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 Singh Daljit 2013.12.13 15:38 I attest to the accuracy of this document C.W.P.No.12215 of 2005 (O&M) -3- 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 questions the order dated 13.6.2005. The petitioner as also one Iqbal Singh faced allegations. If the statement of allegations is seen then it is primarily against Iqbal Singh (petitioner in CWP No.10892 of 2006). They are extracted herebelow :
"On 1.5.2005, the petitioner was contacted by a lady in England who wanted prayers to be conducted in Gurdwara Sahib for the welfare of a relative who was in the family way. The petitioner assured the lady that prayers (Akhand Path) would be started on 2.5.2005 and would be concluded on 4.5.2005 and requested the lady to dispatch the amount required for the same. It is alleged that the petitioner did not ensure the initiation of the prayers and when confronted by the relative, the prayers were eventually started on 4.5.2005."
The only allegation against the petitioner in the present case is that he had prepared a bogus receipt with regard to the amount received for Singh Daljit 2013.12.13 15:38 I attest to the accuracy of this document C.W.P.No.12215 of 2005 (O&M) -4- organising the Akhand Path.
The petitioner in his defence has stated that the amount which was given for the purpose had been deposited, but it had not been paid to the 'Pathis'. It is also stated that the amount had been given by the lady to Iqbal Singh and if there was any fault in not getting the Akhand Path organised, the blame squarely fell on Iqbal Singh and not upon him, and even otherwise, the only allegations against him are of preparing a fake bill, which is incorrect. This Court by way of a separate order passed in CWP No.10892 of 2006 had accepted the plea of Iqbal Singh and quashed the order of dismissal of his services but with liberty to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law.
For the very same reason that the allegation against the petitioner have not been established in accordance with law, I am of the opinion that the instant petition also needs to be accepted on the parity of reasons earlier given by this Court in CWP No.10892 of 2006.
Consequently, the writ petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service considering the fact that he was employed for a period of 9 years prior to his dismissal.
28.11.2013 (MAHESH GROVER)
dss JUDGE
Singh Daljit
2013.12.13 15:38
I attest to the accuracy
of this document