Diljit Singh Bedi vs Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar

Diljit Singh Bedi ...... Appellant

Versus

Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak

Committee, Sri Amritsar ...... Respondent

JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Delay condoned in filing rejoinder affidavit.

2. Leave granted.

3. This is an appeal against the order dated 03.04.2008

of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the

writ petition CWP No.5587 of 2008 of the appellant

challenging his termination from service under the

Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee (for short

`the SGPC').

2 4. The relevant facts very briefly are that the appellant

was working as an Assistant Secretary of the SGPC at

Amritsar when a news item was published in the local

dailies in November 2007 with some photographs of the

appellant with a woman in embarrassing positions. The

SGPC constituted a Sub-Committee to hold an inquiry

against the appellant and the appellant was asked to appear

before the Sub-Committee on 22.11.2007 at 10.00 A.M. in

the Meeting House, Sri Guru Nanak Niwas, Sri Amritsar.

The appellant submitted his explanation that the

photographs were that of himself and his wife and he did

not know how someone has taken these from his bedroom.

The Sub-Committee accepted the explanation of the

appellant and submitted an inquiry report dated 01.12.2007

recommending that the appellant be reinstated in his post.

On the basis of the inquiry report of the Sub-Committee, the

Executive Committee of the SGPC in its meeting on

01.01.2008 resolved to reinstate the appellant in service.

On 04.01.2008, however, the appellant submitted his

resignation and the resignation was accepted by the

President of the SGPC by order dated 04.01.2008. The

3

appellant then made a representation complaining that his

resignation was obtained by coercion and misrepresentation

and by order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary of

the SGPC, the order dated 04.01.2008 of the President of

the SGPC accepting the resignation of the appellant was

cancelled and the appellant was relieved from service on the

ground that the resolution of the Executive Committee

adopted on 01.01.2008 to reinstate the appellant in service

was not confirmed by the Executive Committee in the

meeting on 18.02.2008. Aggrieved by the order dated

28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary, SGPC, relieving the

appellant from service, the appellant filed writ petition, CWP

No.5587 of 2008, before the High Court. By the impugned

order dated 03.04.2008, the High Court dismissed the writ

petition after holding that the appellant had not only

defamed the SGPC but also brought a bad name to the

entire community and the order dated 28.02.2008 relieving

the appellant from service had been rightly passed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

woman, who was with the appellant in the photographs,

was appellant's wife and the inquiry report submitted by the

4

Sub-Committee would show that the explanation of the

appellant that the concerned woman was his wife had been

accepted and on the basis of the inquiry report submitted

by the Sub-Committee the appellant had been fully

exonerated and reinstated in service by the Executive

Committee of the SGPC by the resolution dated 01.01.2008.

He further submitted that the order dated 04.01.2008 of the

President of the SGPC accepting the resignation of the

appellant had also been cancelled pursuant to the

representation of the appellant that the resignation had

been obtained from the appellant by coercion and

misrepresentation. He argued that the Executive

Committee of the SGPC had actually dismissed the

appellant from service for alleged misconduct by resolution

dated 18.02.2008 without any finding in any inquiry that

the appellant was guilty of such misconduct.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other

hand, submitted relying on the reply filed by the respondent

that the appellant had in fact tendered his resignation from

his post on 04.01.2008. He referred to the resignation

dated 04.01.2008 of the appellant annexed to the reply as

5

Annexure R-2 to show that he had resigned from the post

with a view to ensure that the image of the Shiromani

Gurudwara Prabandhak was not sullied. He submitted that

the President of the SGPC accepted the resignation of the

appellant on 04.01.2008 after deducting a month's pay in

lieu of notice with effect from 04.01.2008 according to rules

and this would be evident from the order dated 04.01.2008,

copy of which has been annexed to the reply as Annexure R-

3. He submitted that under the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925

(for short `the Act'), and in particular Section 69 thereof, the

Executive Committee of the SGPC has the power to appoint

and punish the employees of the SGPC and in exercise of

this power the Executive Committee of the SGPC resolved to

terminate the services of the appellant by resolution

adopted on 18.02.2008. He submitted that the High Court

has therefore rightly sustained the order of termination of

the services of the appellant and this is not a fit case in

which this Court should in exercise of its power under

Article 136 of the Constitution interfere with the impugned

order passed by the High Court.

6 7. The first question which we are called upon to decide

in this case is whether the appellant had resigned from the

post of Assistant Secretary of the SGPC or whether his

services were terminated by the Executive Committee of the

SGPC. It appears from Annexure R-2 annexed to the reply

of the respondent that on 04.01.2008 the appellant had

submitted his resignation to the President of the SGPC and

it further appears from the Annexure R-3 annexed to the

reply of the respondent that the resignation of the appellant

had been accepted by the President of the SGPC, but on

28.02.2008 the Secretary of the SGPC issued an order

stating that the Executive Committee of the SGPC in its

resolution no. 173 dated 18.02.2008 cancelled the order

dated 04.01.2008 of the President accepting the resignation

of the appellant. The order dated 28.02.2008 of the

Secretary of the SGPC extracted hereinbelow:-

"SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE

SRI AMRITSAR

Copy of Office Order No.4073 dated 28.02.2008

Executive Committee vide its Resolution

No.173 dated 18.02.2008 while not confirming the

Resolution No.130 dated 01.01.2008 of reinstating

in service Sh. Diljit Singh, Assistant Secretary

under suspension (s/o Lal Singh) Publishing

7

Department, Shiromani Committee has instead

relieved him from service and has cancelled office

order No.3465 dated 4.1.2008 vide which the

President had accepted his resignation. Therefore

he should be considered as relived from service.

S/d Secretary,

Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee

Sri Amritsar"

Only the Executive Committee of the SGPC has the

statutory power under Section 69 of the Act, to remove any

employee of the SGPC. Therefore the acceptance of the

resignation of the appellant by the President of the SGPC is

of no legal consequence. Moreover, the fact remains that

the Executive Committee of the SGPC has cancelled the

order dated 04.01.2008 of the President of the SGPC

accepting the resignation of the appellant and has instead

relieved the appellant from service. We are thus of the

considered opinion that this was not a case of resignation

from service by the appellant but of termination of service of

the appellant by the Executive Committee of the SGPC.

8. The second question which we have to decide in this

case is whether the termination of service of the

appellant by the Executive Committee of the SGPC by

resolution dated 18.02.2008 was legally valid. The

8

order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary, SGPC

quoted above does not state the reasons for the

decision of the Executive Committee taken in the

meeting held on 18.02.2008 to relieve the appellant

from service. No counter affidavit was filed by the

SGPC before the High Court in reply to the writ

petition. It appears from the impugned order that the

writ petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court

after the counsel for the SGPC placed before the High

Court the cuttings of the local dailies `Punjab Kesari'

and `Jag Bani' both of 04.01.2008 containing

photographs of the appellant in embarrassing

positions with a woman. In the reply filed in this

Court, the SGPC has stated in para 5 that the

appellant was working on an important post of

Assistant Secretary of the SGPC and was supposed to

maintain highest standards and that the High Court

has therefore correctly passed the order maintaining

the termination of the appellant. In para 6 of the

reply, the respondent has further stated that since the

appellant has himself admitted his guilt in the writ

9

petition filed by him, he cannot claim any violation of

his right to natural justice and no prejudice has been

caused to him. From these facts, it is clear that the

appellant was terminated from service by way of

punishment for allegations of misconduct. Hence, this

is not a case of termination simpliciter but a dismissal

for misconduct.

9. The Executive Committee of the SGPC has in exercise

of its powers under the Act framed the Service Rules

for the employees of the SGPC prescribing their service

conditions which include their appointment and

removal from service. Rule 4 of the Service Rules,

which relates to dismissal from service, is quoted in

Mewa Singh and others v. Shiromani Gurdwara

Prabandhak Committee [(1999) 2 SCC 60] at page 64

and is reproduced hereinbelow:

"4. Dismissal:- (a) The employee can be dismissed in

accordance with the below-mentioned rule by this

appointment authority, but appeal against the

dismissal by the President shall lie to the Executive

Committee within 30 days from the date of

dismissal.

(b) Any employee under the control of management

of any department of the Gurdwara under the

Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee may

10

prefer an appeal against any punishment of

suspension, dismissal, fine, warning, etc. within 30

days from the date of issuance of the order:

(i) any employee of the Shiromani committee can be

dismissed or degraded for his bad character,

dishonesty, drinking or becoming a `patit' but before

he is dismissed or degraded, the allegations in the

form of a written charge-sheet shall be supplied to

him along with the statement of allegations on the

basis of which the charges are leveled against him.

Representation against these charges shall be

received from the employee within a reasonable time

and in case he denies these charges or prays for

holding an enquiry or the Executive Committee

deems it fit, these charges shall be got enquired into

in the presence of the employee and for each item of

the charge-sheet which has not been admitted,

evidence shall be recorded in his presence and the

employee shall be entitled to cross-examine these

witnesses. In case an employee wishes to produce

his defence, the same shall be entertained, but in

case if the Enquiry Committee feels that certain

evidence is not necessary, it shall not be permitted

to be produced for the reasons to be recorded in

writing. Action shall be taken against the

employees only when the charge is established.

(ii) In case the employees wish to produce any

record or document in their defence, he shall be

permitted to do so and if he asks for the copies of

these documents, the same shall be supplied to him

without any objection and he shall be permitted to

inspect the record free of cost.

(iii) Every employee who has been dismissed or

degraded or removed shall be supplied with the

copies of the report of the Enquiry Committee and

also the final decision of the Executive Committee

free of cost.

11 (iv) (a) The record pertaining to the dismissal or

degradation of an employee shall not be destroyed

for three years, rather it shall be kept in safe

custody.

(b) If an employee is reinstated on exoneration after

his suspension, he shall be entitled to the arrears of

salary of the suspension period."

10. We find on a reading of Rule 4 of the Service Rules

that an employee of the SGPC can be dismissed from

service for bad character only after the charges of

misconduct are established in an inquiry conducted by

an inquiry committee. Thus, though the Executive

Committee of the SGPC may have the power under

Section 69 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder

to terminate the services of any employee of the SGPC,

it can terminate the services of any employee for

misconduct, only when such misconduct is established

in an inquiry. It appears from the inquiry report dated

01.12.2007 of the Sub-Committee constituted by the

Executive Committee of the SGPC that the Sub-

Committee had accepted the explanation of the

appellant that the photographs which were published

in the local newspapers were of his wife. Thus,

12

without a finding in an inquiry that the appellant was

guilty of conduct which had defamed the SGPC, the

High Court could not have taken a view in the

impugned order that the appellant had brought a bad

name to the SGPC and he had been rightly relieved

from service.

11. The order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary

of the SGPC terminating the services of the appellant is

therefore not legally valid and is accordingly quashed.

The impugned order of the High Court is set aside.

The writ petition and this appeal are allowed. The

appellant will be forthwith reinstated in service. On

the facts and circumstances, particularly having

regard to the fact that the appellant had offered to

resign on 04.01.2008, the appellant will not be entitled

to any backwages. There shall be no order as to costs.

..........................J.

(R.V. Raveendran)

..........................J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

13

May 03, 2011.