Inderjit Singh vs Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee

R.S. Mongia, J.—Petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 10.9.1998, copy Annexure P-3, which reads as under :-

"OFFICE OF SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR, TEJA SINGH SAMUNDR1 HALL.

No. 2853, Amritsar, 10.9.98

Bhai Inderjit Singh, Sevadar under suspension, s/o Sh. Pritam Singh, Shri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar.

Subject :- Charge Sheet.

Under the authorisation of the acting President, I serve you with the charge sheet in the following terms :-

That the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee is a statutory body constituted under the Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925. Its main office is at Teja Singh Samundari Hall, Amritsar, which has the right to undertake any kind of legal proceedings under its name and style.

That Shri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar is a Sikh Gurudwara declared u/s 85 of the Act and under the control and management of the S.G.P.C., Amritsar. Therefore, the employees of Shri Darbar Sahib are also the employees of fhe S.G.P.C,

That according to the office record you are a paid employee of S.G.P.C, since 9.6.1979. On 16.7.98 you were on duty at Shri Guru Ram Dass Dining Hall.

That being a paid employee it was your legal duty not to commit any irregularity yourself and also not to help anyone else for doing same.

That Smt. Kulwant Kaur, resident of 1987, Ranjit Avenue, B-Block, Amritsar offered 200 Bowls, 100 plates, 2 jugs in donation in the Shri Guru Ram Dass Dining Hall on 16.7.1998. The lady requested you 3/4 times for issuing receipt of utensils donated by her. But you did not listen to her. When you were asked to make a statement in this regard, then you admitted that the lady did not ask for receipt. But when you were identified by the lady in flying branch you admitted your fault by changing your statement and accepted the allegation of not issuing the receipt. It is, therefore, clear that you did not issue the receipt with a mala-fide intention. In this way you have hurt the feelings of the devotee and have disreputed the institution. For this reason, you are not fit of this service.

Please show cause as to why you should not be declared unfit for service of the Gurudwara and re moved from service. The reply to this charge sheet must reach to the undersigned in writing within 15 days of receipt of this charge sheet. Be fore submitting your reply, if you wish to peruse the related record of the case, you will be allowed to do so with my written permission. If the rely to the charge sheet is not received within stipulated time, it shall be presumed that you are guilty and that you have no reply to the charges. Thereafter further action will be taken,"

The petitioner gave a reply on 22.9.1998, copy Annexure P-4 denying all the charges. However, an order was passed on 7.11.1998, copy Annexure P-5, dismissing the petitioner from service, the order when translated into English reads as under :-

OFFICE OF SHRI DARBAR SAHIB, AMRITSAR Order No. 1348 Dated: 7.11.98

As per the order No. 1907 dated 6.11.98 of the office of S.G.P.C. the Parbandhak Committee in its meeting held on 5.11.98, dismissed Bhai Inderjit Singh a paid Sewadar (s/o Sh. Pritam Singh) from the service of Shri Darbar Sahbi, Amritsar for not issuing receipts of the utensils brought by a devotee for donation, even on his demand, and for hurting the feelings of the devotee, and finding his reply to the charge sheet not satisfactory.

Sd/- (Diyal Singh) Manager,

Shri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar".

This order has been challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that after the denial of the charges against the petitioner no enquiry whatsoever was held. No evidence was led by the prosecution nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead his defence. This is not being denied on the part of the respondent. However, the respondent is relying on the alleged statement made by the petitioner prior to the serving of the charge sheet before the flying squad, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure R-2 with the written statement. According to the respondent, the petitioner had admitted of having not issued the receipt despite one Kulwant Kaur, mentioned in the charge sheet, having asked for the same pertaining to the utensils which she had donated.

The petitioner had even denied making of any such statement in reply to the charge sheet. Apart from that it is the petitioner''s case that it was wholly a cooked up story as there is no lady by the name of Kulwant Kaur who ever resided in House No. B-187, Ranjit Avenue. Along with the reply, the petitioner had also appended a document showing that in fact there was no lady by the name of Kulwant Kaur who ever resided in House No. B-187, Ranjit Annvenue. The said document when translated into English, reads as under:-

"To The Secretary, S.G.P. Committee, Amritsar.

Sir,

It is requested that some lady has donated some utensils (Plates and bowls) in the Guru Ram Dass Dining Hall, who has given her name and address as Kulwant Kaur, 187, Ranjit Avenue. We have verified and found that no such lady by the name of Kulwant Kaur has been residing on the said address. You are requested to please attest the same.

No lady named Kulwant kaur is residing in B-187.

Sd/- President, SGPC

President, SGPC

No lady of this name is residing in 187. If someone has given (his address, it is a lie/false.

No lady named Kulwant Kaur is residing here. We are residing in this Kothi D-187 Ranjit Avenue

Sd/- (Satpal Singh) Engineer. Gazetted Officer, A-187 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Sd/- Tarlochan Singh

Sd/- 3.9.98

The Plot No. E-I87 is vacant and house is yet to be constructed. There is no living Smt. Kulwant Kaur in this plot.

Sd/- Satyajit Singh, E-l92Ranjit Avenue".

In view of the above, we are of the opinion, that holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charge was without any basis or evidence. On the basis of the denial of the charge sheet by the petitioner, evidence should have been led and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to produce his evidence in defence if he so desired. There is complete violation of the basic principles of holding a person guilty. There is also a complete denial of principles of natural justice.

For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 10.9.1998, copy Annexure P-3. Resultantly, the petitioner would stand reinstated with continuity of service. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages from the date of his dismissal on 7.11.1998 to the date of the filing of the present writ petition, which was filed on 10.8.2000.

Petition allowed.