IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 8413 OF 2001 DATE OF DECISION : 23-07-2008 Angrej Singh ....Petitioner Versus SGPC ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mrs.Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate, for the respondent AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28-02-2001 whereby his services have been terminated on account of misbehaviour with the helpless woman and for bringing bad name to the institution. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed by the respondent on 14-07-1988 and while he was on duty in the earthquake affected areas of Gujrat, a false charge was levelled against him and he was forced to put his thumb mark on a blank paper and that thereafter without issuance of any show-cause notice or charge sheet or holding any enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 4 of the Service Rules framed by the respondents whereby it is necessary to hold the enquiry before taking any action against an employee. She has also relied upon the following judgements,namely,“Mewa Singh versus SGPC JT 1998(8) SC503 and of this Court in “Ajaib Singh versus SGPC CWP 7236 of 1996”decided on 03-10-1996 in support of her plea that the petitioner could not have been removed from service without holding regular enquiry since the order of termination of service is stigmatic. Learned counsel for the respondent has resisted the petition primarily on three grounds. The first contention is that the order of dismissal being --2-- specifically appealable and admittedly no appeal having been filed, the present petition is not maintainable. The second contention is that the proviso to Rule 4 lays down that the protection mentioned in the said Rule is not available to either temporary employees or employees on probation and, thus, the petitioner can have no benefit either of the Rules or the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The third limb of argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner had confessed to his act and, thus, there was no requirement of enquiry. He has relied upon the decision in CWP 5587 of 2008 passed by this Court to contend that an enquiry is not required in every case. In that case, the Bench had been shown the photographs of the petitioner therein in an extremely scandlous position and thus there was no dispute about the complicity of the petitioner. As mentioned above, the facts in the present case are different. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner has countered that dismissal order having been confirmed by the Executive Committee .Provision of appeal before the same authority would not render this petition not maintainable. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if services of an employee are to be terminated by a stigmatic order, the same can be preceded only by a regular enquiry, even though the employee is a probationer or a temporary employee. As regards the third limb of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the petition itself, it was alleged that the thumb impression of the petitioner was obtained on a blank piece of paper and, thus, the alleged confession is a fabricated document. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order Annexure P-2 deserves to be set aside since it has been passed without holding any enquiry. In this regard, I draw support from the judgement of this Court in Ajaib Singh 's case (supra) wherein the Divison Bench of this court --3-- held as follows :- “Shri B.S.Guglani, learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that all the employees of the SGPC were required to strictly adhere to a pious life. They have to maintain high standards of life and should be persons of good character. Since the petitioner was found to be indulging in certain objectionable activities, his services could not be retained at a religious institution like Sri Darbar Sahib. This plea has no reliance to the controversy raised in the present petition. It is indeed true that persons of high morale and good character should be associated with the affairs of Shri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, but an employee cannot be thrown out of the employment because certain allegations were made against him relating to his conduct and character. Due process of law must be adopted and observed in accordance with the Rules. A bad employee can be thrown out of employment but only after following due process of law and observing the principles of natural justice.” In the circumstances, the order Annexure P-2 is set aside. The respondent would be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matter by following procedure under Rule 4. It is further directed that the petitioner would not get wages for the period he had not been in service of the respondent . However, he would be entitled to all other consequential benefits including the continuity of service. This petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge 23-07-2008 MandeepKaur