IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.8771 of 2011 Date of Decision:18.05.2011 Bhai Karamjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and another .....Respondents CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Present:- Ms. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of order dated 30.3.2008 Annexure P-3 vide which the services of the petitioner has been terminated as also for quashing of order dated 16.3.2011 Annexure P-13 passed by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee on an appeal preferred by the petitioner dismissing the same. It is the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that as per Service Rules, as framed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, mandates the issuance of a charge-sheet, a reply thereto and thereafter holding of an inquiry and if the charges are established against him, order of punishment could be passed. In the present case, none of these proceedings have been complied with. Before passing the order Annexure P-3, Local Gurdwara Committee, where the petitioner was working as a Granthi, simply recorded that the petitioner admitted the fault that he had misbehaved with the lady in the gurdwara and on that basis, it had terminated the services of the petitioner whereas the mandate of the rule C.W.P. No.8771 of 2011 -2- is for issuance of the charge-sheet calling for a response and thereafter, if the charges are denied by the delinquent employee, an inquiry has to be held and if the inquiry committee holds him guilty, thereafter, only an order of punishment could be passed against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had filed C.W.P. No.15560 of 2010 praying for quashing of the order dated 30.3.2008 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9.9.2010 giving liberty to the petitioner to submit an appeal before Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, which was directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing personally the petitioner and `by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of such representation. The petitioner submitted his representation before the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee on 18.11.2010. In the said representation, in para 3, the petitioner had stated that there was no admission made by him as has been recorded in the resolution dated 30.3.2008 which led to the termination of the services of the petitioner. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee constituted a Sub-Committee to inquire into the matter and the meeting was fixed for 21.12.2010 at 10:00 A.M where the petitioner as well as the Management of the Local Gurdwara were called to put forth their respective submissions along with the proof. On consideration of the evidence which was produced before the Sub Committee, the Sub Committee proceeded to hold an independent inquiry and thereafter, came to conclusion that the charges against the petitioner stood proved and recommended the dismissal of the appeal vide its recommendations dated 16.3.2011 (Annexure P-13) which was accepted by the Executive Committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak C.W.P. No.8771 of 2011 -3- Committee on 23.4.2011 (Annexure P14). Counsel for the petitioner contends that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the allegations which were levelled against him, firstly, because no formal charge-sheet was issued to him nor any reply on the same was called for by the respondents and they have straightaway proceeded to inquire into the matter. The evidence which has been led by the Local Gurdwara Committee was merely a cutting of the paper and the resolution dated 21.2.2011, which have been made the basis for returning a finding that the petitioner had misconducted himself. She, on this basis, contends that the findings as recorded by the Sub-Committee and the consequential recommendation along with the acceptance of the same by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee cannot be accepted as it would not amount to compliance of mandate of Rule 4 of the Service Rules. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The facts as has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner are spelt out from the documents which have been attached with the writ petition and therefore, do not need any further reference except that the petitioner after his termination vide order dated 30.3.2008 (Annexure P-3) had filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court bearing No.15560 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 9.9.2010 vide which opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. The appeal/ representation as directed by this Court was filed by the petitioner and on consideration of the same, the appellate authority constituted a Sub-Committee to inquire into the matter afresh. The Sub-Committee proceeded to hear both the parties C.W.P. No.8771 of 2011 -4- where the allegations made against the petitioner was spelt out and the petitioner was made aware of the charges levelled against him. Due opportunity was given to him to respond to the same and similarly the Local Gurdwara Committee was also given an opportunity to prove the charges against the petitioner. Both the parties availed of that opportunity. This was a fresh independent inquiry. The Local Gurdwara Committee Members stated before the Sub-Committee which was inquiring into the matter that the petitioner had orally admitted his fault before the Local Gurdwara Committee and in the light of incident, resolution No.147 dated 30.3.2008 was passed by the Gurdwara Committee removing him from service. The said resolution, the cutting of the newspaper and the resolution dated 21.2.2011 were placed on record before the Committee. The petitioner was given due opportunity to produce any evidence in his defence but neither he could satisfactorily answer the serious charges levelled against him which was to the effect that he being a Granthi of the gurdwara brought one orchestra girl in his room in the gurdwara on 29.8.2008 in the evening and committed illegal act with her in his closed room in the gurdwara premises. Thereafter, Granthi went out stealthily to see off the girl where he was caught by the public and on account of this act , the news was published in the newspaper and the matter became public which resulted in bringing bad name to the Gurdwara and its management. In the light of the fact that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence either documentary or oral to prove his innocence and also in the light of the fact that he had admitted himself before the Local Gurdwara Committee which fact was reiterated by the Local Committee members before the Sub Committee, mere denial by the petitioner would not absolve C.W.P. No.8771 of 2011 -5- him on his admission which he had made before the Committee when resolution dated 30.3.2008 was passed. The mandate of the Rule 4 stood fully complied with after the petitioner was given due opportunity to explain his conduct and to produce evidence in his support for denial of the charges against him as the Management Committee had been able to prove the said charges on the basis of the statement made by the Local Committee members and the resolution and newspaper cutting produced by them. The principles of natural justice which are reflected in Rule 4 of the Service Rules have been fully complied with and keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner which stood proved by the local Gurdwara Committee before the Sub-Committee does not call for any further interference by this Court. The evidence led during the inquiry proceedings cannot be gone into by this Court as while exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226, this Court is not acting as an appellate authority nor exercising appellate jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. May 18, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) renu JUDGE