IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 43 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 28, 2011 Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee ….Appellant Versus Prem Singh …. Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition holding that the matter was covered in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent Prem Singh by a judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of a co-delinquent employee titled as Bhai Raghvir Singh v. The Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (C.W.P. No.7128 of 1999, decided on 14.3.2000). In that judgment, the common order dated 28.7.1998 passed by the SGPC was set aside. The name of the petitioner-respondent also figured in that order. However, the writ petition filed by the petitioner- respondent has remained pending before this Court. 2. Mr. Sukhbir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to distinguish the judgment rendered by the Division L.P.A. No. 43 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Bench in the case of Bhai Raghvir Singh (P.4) stating that it did apply to the case of the writ petitioner-respondent by arguing that Bhai Raghvir Singh was a regular employee and, therefore, an enquiry was mandatory. Learned counsel has also submitted that there was no admission made by Bhai Raghvir Singh whereas petitioner-respondent Prem Singh has made admission with regard to the mis-conduct committed by him. 3. Ms. Vanita Sapra Kataria, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has, however, pointed out that both the so-called distinguishing features pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are without any basis. She has drawn the attention of the Court to para 2 of the judgment rendered in Bhai Raghvir Singh's case (supra) and pointed out that the so-called admission. She has maintained that in fact, it is a report of the Flying Squad and there was no admission made before some independent agency like the Inquiry Officer or in reply to the charge-sheet. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper-book, we are of the considered view that the distinguishing features sought to be spelled out by the learned counsel for the appellant do not merit acceptance. The Division Bench in Bhai Raghvir Singh's case (supra) has clarified that it was not influenced by the status of the employee whether he was regular or not. Para 2 of the judgment clearly answer the aforesaid argument which reads as under :- “A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner L.P.A. No. 43 of 2011 (O&M) -3- was appointed as Tractor Driver in the service of SGPC and as on the date of termination of his service i.e. 28.7.1998, he had completed 2 years service. There is some dispute between about his status on the date of termination of service but, in our opinion, that is not relevant for the purpose of determining of the questions referred to here-in- above.” 5. The other submission made by counsel for the appellant that there was admission on the part of the writ petitioner-respondent is also liable to be rejected because once an order is passed against an employee which is stigmatic in character, then an independent agency must make enquiry after the issuance of charge sheet. If in response to the charge sheet, admission is made than the same can be taken into account. We are further of the view that no reliance could be placed on the enquiry conducted by the Flying Squad appointed by the appellant- Management as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mewa Singh and others v. SGPC, J.T. 1998 (8) SC 503. The aforesaid view has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Inderjit Singh v. SGPC (C.W.P. No.4436 of 1999, decided on 17.7.2008). As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 28, 2011 JUDGE satish