Civil Writ Petition No. 229 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 229 of 2005 Date of Decision: 22.9.2010 Rashpal Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sukhbir Singh Mattewal, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that the impugned orders dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure P13) and dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure P14), whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated, be quashed as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them and the principles of natural justice were not followed. To controvert the prayer, Mr. Sukhbir Singh Mattewal, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that various attempts had been made to serve Show Cause Notices upon the petitioners, thereafter a news item was also got published in “Ajit Newspaper” as well. He has further submitted that since the petitioners have failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer (Incharge, Flying Civil Writ Petition No. 229 of 2005 2 Squad), therefore, the impugned orders were passed in their absence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners never absented, rather they were appearing before the Enquiry Officer but were not allowed to join the enquiry. It is further submitted that the petitioners have sent their reply through registered post. Be that as it may, this Court will not determine the disputed question as to whether the petitioners were willfully absent or were appearing before the Enquiry Officer. As on today, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not associated with the enquiry. Thus, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Enquiry Officer, to be appointed by respondent No.1, on 29.10.2010, who shall conclude the enquiry within a period of three months thereafter. Needless to say that the enquiry shall be held in consonance with the procedure prescribed and due opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners to defend themselves. Till the enquiry is concluded, the order of termination of the services of the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance and in case the Enquiry officer comes to a conclusion that the petitioners are found guilty of the charges, fresh orders shall be passed, in consonance with the rules. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 22, 2010 “DK”