IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8171 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.04.2010 Kala Singh ….Petitioner versus Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Teja Singh Samundari Hall, Sri Amritsar through its Secretary and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Ms. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Col. K.P.Singh, Advocate, for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No.1 ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of dismissal issued by the 2nd respondent on an alleged resolution passed by the Gurdwara Local Committee. The order which records a resolution passed by the Committee reads as follows:- “ On being placed it has been found that Bhai Karamjit Singh Granthi had committed a mistake in the Gurdwara which the Manager could not control timely therefore the Manager is today on 1-6-08 removed from service. This Manager can after today join duty in any other Gurdwara.” 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Gurdwara Local Committee is established under statute and the order of removal could not have been passed without issuing a show cause notice before dismissal by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. It is the further contention that even Civil Writ Petition No.8171 of 2009 - 2 - the resolution makes a only vague allegation that an employee had committed some mistake in gurdwara and the Manager did not take effective control over the same. The nature of mistake by the employee is not disclosed and how such a vicarious liability could be cast on a Manager is also not properly explained in the resolution. 3. The 1st respondent has filed reply setting out the fact that they have only supervisory functions and it is the Local Committee that had taken a decision. The 2nd respondent has been served with the writ petition but it has not put in appearance or filed any counter to the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. The impugned order ought to be quashed for the simple reason that it has flouted the fundamental rule of natural justice of taking a decision to terminate the services of a person without affording any opportunity to show cause against such a decision. The order is also vitiated for the inherent flaw that a mistake alleged to have been committed by yet another person could not have been fastened to the Manager to visit him with the extraordinary punishment of removal from service. The order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all the benefits which has been denied to him by resort to a decision and the same shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from today. The 2nd respondent shall also mulcted with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.04.2010 sanjeev