Sukhdev Singh vs Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee

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) Whether the proceedings arising out of the said order of termination are amenable to an alternative relief u/s 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 and Others Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

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 Dwarka Nath Vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur and Another, 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.

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 u/s 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 facts of the instant case reveal that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for having gesticulated to some women-devotees and summoned them outside the holy precincts with an ulterior motive and when confronted, the petitioner apologized. It has been stated in the charge sheet that this incident was witnessed by another Sevadar and a few members of the Gurdwara staff. The petitioner was eventually dismissed from service on the aforesaid allegation, though he had denied to this charge and had stated that it was a result of conspiracy because on an earlier occasion he had complained about wrong doings, and misappropriation of some amount on the part of certain staff members.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the allegations which seem to be frivolous and on account of the stand taken by the petitioner, it was obligatory upon the respondents to hold an enquiry to establish these charges and that not having been done, it would indicate a substantial prejudice haying been caused to the petitioner.

No reply to the petition has been filed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the view that the petitioner has been substantially prejudiced. The allegations do not set out any misconduct which would lead to such a harsh punishment such as dismissal and that too, without holding an enquiry. There is nothing on record to suggest that these women had complained against the petitioner of making obscene gestures. All that can be gathered from the charge sheet is that the petitioner summoned them. As to what possibly could be the purpose, could have been established, if an enquiry had been conducted and the statement of the women recorded. That having not been done, I am of the view that the principles of natural justice have been clearly violated. The petitioner has been ousted from his job without there being any, sufficient material against him. The petition is therefore, accepted and the petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service, but without any monetary consequences since he has not worked for the said period.