Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puran Singh vs Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak ... on 28 November, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.10367 of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.10367 of 2001 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 28.11.2013
Puran 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.
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 2013.12.12 13:54
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.10367 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 2013.12.12 13:54 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.10367 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 petitioner who was working as a granthi with the respondents since 5.12.1986, was dismissed from service by virtue of Annexure P-2 on the ground that he had issued a receipt of a lesser amount while working on the Prashad-Counter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no enquiry as contemplated under the rules was ever held against him and without issuance of a charge sheet etc., the petitioner has been relieved from the service which is contrary to the established norms of natural justice. The impugned order thus suffers from a grave infirmity and deserves to be set aside. Dass Ghanshyam 2013.12.12 13:54 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.10367 of 2001 -4-
The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who with reference to Annexure P-3 to say that the petitioner has himself admitted his fault and having done so, there was no necessity of holding an enquiry against him.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been severely prejudiced. If Annexure P-3 is to be seen, it cannot be said to be an admission. The petitioner has merely stated that it was on account of some mistake that a receipt of lesser amount was issued to a devotee.
Once such a stand was taken by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the respondents to hold a fact finding enquiry to prove the charge against the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner ought to have been chargesheeted and afforded an opportunity to explain his stand.
That having not been done, the respondent has violated the essential tenets of principles of natural justice which would require an adherence to the rule of audi alteram partem.
The impugned order being arbitrary, is therefore, set aside and the petitioner 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 would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with rules, if so advised.
The petition stands allowed.
(MAHESH GROVER)
November 28, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.12.12 13:54
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh