Major Singh vs Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner was working as Manager in Gurdwara Sahib Gang Sar, Jaito, Faridkot. His services were terminated vide resolution dated 13.12.1992 on the allegations of embezzlement. The present petition has been filed seeking reinstatement on the basis of the communication/ clarification dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) of the Judicial Commission, Amritsar, whereby though it has been directed that after the deposit of the alleged embezzled amount by the petitioner, no disqualification stands against him but he was not directed to be reinstated. The claim of the petitioner is that he should be reinstated in service as the disqualification does not stand against him. Briefly the pleaded facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Granthi in Gurdwara Sahib, Patto Heera Singh, District Moga, on 1.11.1986. Thereafter, he was promoted as Manager on 30.12.1986. While he was working as Manager in Gurdwara Sahib Gang Sar, Jaito, Faridkot, his services were terminated vide resolution dated 13.12.1992 on the allegations that he had misappropriated the Gurdwara Funds. A case was also registered against him on 19.2.1996. The embezzled amount was Rs. 54,080.50. The petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order of termination. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (for short, ''the Committee'') filed a petition u/s 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 for recovery of Rs. 50,485/-against the petitioner. The petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte and finally an ex-parte order was passed against him for recovery of Rs. 50,485/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of decretal amount. Rs. 20,000/- was awarded as damages. The petitioner was also disqualified from becoming member/employee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board for a period of five years. The petitioner filed application for setting aside of ex-parte decree, which was allowed by the Commission vide order dated 17.1.2008, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

On 24.3.2008, the petitioner deposited the cost imposed for setting aside of the ex-parte decree and the decretal amount, as a result of which vide order dated 26.3.2008, the petition filed by the Committee was dismissed as infructuous and the decree passed against the petitioner was set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation for taking him back in service on 5.4.2008. Clarification was also sought from the Commission regarding the order passed on 26.3.2008 pertaining to his disqualification. Vide communication dated 6.1.2009, the Commission clarified that as the petitioner had deposited the entire amount due against him and the petition filed by the Committee had been dismissed as infructuous as such there was no disqualification against the petitioner nor any decree was standing against him. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once there was no disqualification against the petitioner and the entire amount embezzled by him had been deposited with the Committee, he is entitled to reinstatement in service.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of termination of services of the petitioner was passed on 13.12.1992 but the same has not been challenged by him till date. In terms of provisions of Rules 4(a) & (b) of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Service Rules, an appeal is maintainable against the order of dismissal before the Executive Committee. It has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of dismissal. He further submitted that the Committee had filed a petition for recovery of Rs. 50,485/- against the petitioner. The petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte and finally an ex parte order was passed against him for recovery of Rs. 50,485/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of decretal amount. Besides, passing the order of recovery of amount, Rs. 20,000/- was awarded towards damages. Further punishment was imposed against the petitioner disqualifying him from becoming member/employee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board for a period of five years. Setting aside of ex-parte order did not mean that the termination/dismissal of the petitioner had been set aside by the Commission as the petitioner had not challenged the termination order in that petition. Even otherwise, the Commission was not competent to go into that issue as the order of dismissal was appealable before the Executive Committee. The clarification which was sought to be relied upon seeking reinstatement only shows that the disqualification of the petitioner as was noticed in the order dated 26.7.2005 stood deleted as a result of which the petitioner could be an employee or member of the notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The communication/clarification dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner to seek reinstatement in service, in fact, does not grant any such relief to him. It is not disputed that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 13.12.1992. The said order was not challenged by him till date. As per the provisions of the Rules, appeal was maintainable before the Executive Committee. The issue before the Commission was only regarding recovery of the amount embezzled by the petitioner in a petition filed by the SGPC, which was decreed ex-parte vide order dated 26.7.2005 ordering recovery of Rs. 50,485/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of decretal amount and Rs. 20,000/- were imposed as damages. Besides that the petitioner was also disqualified from becoming member/employee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board for a period of five years. The application filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex-parte order was allowed subject to deposit of Rs. 1,000/- as cost. Thereafter, the petitioner having deposited the decretal amount in terms of order dated 26.7.2005 passed by the Commission against him, his disqualification for not becoming member/employee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board for a period of five years, was deleted. Thereafter, the petitioner sought reinstatement in service. Clarification to that effect was also sought from the Commission. The Commission vide communication dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) did not grant such relief to the petitioner, rather that relief could not possibly be granted to him as the same was not the subject matter of the petition before the Commission. It is only the disqualification of the petitioner from taking employment or membership of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board for a period of five years which was deleted and that does not entitle him to reinstatement in service. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.