Diljit Singh Bedi Vs.
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar
JUDGMENT
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
1.
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').
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 him 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 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 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 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.
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 here in below:-
"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
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 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
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 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. (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, 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 back wages. There shall be no order as to costs.
..........................J.
(R.V. Raveendran)
..........................J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
New
Delhi,
May
03, 2011.
Back
