Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3848 OF 2011  (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17410 of 2008)

  Diljit Singh Bedi  ……   Appellant

Versus

Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak  Committee, Sri Amritsar                            …… Respondent

JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Delay condoned in filing rejoinder affidavit.

2. Leave granted.  

3. This is an appeal against the order dated 03.04.2008  

of  the High Court  of  Punjab and Haryana dismissing the  

writ  petition  CWP  No.5587  of  2008  of  the  appellant  

challenging  his  termination  from  service  under  the  

Shiromani  Gurudwara  Prabhandhak Committee  (for  short  

‘the SGPC’).

4. The relevant facts very briefly are that the appellant  

was  working  as  an  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  SGPC  at  

Amritsar  when  a  news  item  was  published  in  the  local  

dailies  in  November  2007  with  some  photographs  of  the  

appellant  with  a  woman in  embarrassing  positions.   The  

SGPC  constituted  a  Sub-Committee  to  hold  an  inquiry  

against the appellant and the appellant was asked to appear  

before the Sub-Committee on 22.11.2007 at 10.00 A.M. in  

the Meeting House,  Sri  Guru Nanak Niwas,  Sri  Amritsar.  

The  appellant  submitted  his  explanation  that  the  

photographs were that of himself and his wife and he did  

not know how someone has taken these from his bedroom.  

The  Sub-Committee  accepted  the  explanation  of  the  

appellant and submitted an inquiry report dated 01.12.2007  

recommending that the appellant be reinstated in his post.  

On the basis of the inquiry report of the Sub-Committee, the  

Executive  Committee  of  the  SGPC  in  its  meeting  on  

01.01.2008 resolved to  reinstate  the  appellant  in  service.  

On  04.01.2008,  however,  the  appellant  submitted  his  

resignation  and  the  resignation  was  accepted  by  the  

President  of  the  SGPC  by  order  dated  04.01.2008.   The  

2

appellant then made a representation complaining that his  

resignation was obtained by coercion and misrepresentation  

and by order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary of  

the SGPC, the order dated 04.01.2008 of the President of  

the  SGPC accepting  the  resignation  of  the  appellant  was  

cancelled and the appellant was relieved from service on the  

ground  that  the  resolution  of  the  Executive  Committee  

adopted on 01.01.2008 to reinstate the appellant in service  

was  not  confirmed  by  the  Executive  Committee  in  the  

meeting  on  18.02.2008.   Aggrieved  by  the  order  dated  

28.02.2008  issued  by  the  Secretary,  SGPC,  relieving  the  

appellant from service, the appellant filed writ petition, CWP  

No.5587 of 2008, before the High Court.  By the impugned  

order dated 03.04.2008, the High Court dismissed the writ  

petition  after  holding  that  the  appellant  had  not  only  

defamed  the  SGPC but  also  brought  a  bad  name  to  the  

entire community and the order dated 28.02.2008 relieving  

the appellant from service had been rightly passed.   

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  

woman,  who was  with  the  appellant  in  the  photographs,  

was appellant’s wife and the inquiry report submitted by the  

3

Sub-Committee  would  show  that  the  explanation  of  the  

appellant that the concerned woman was his wife had been  

accepted and on the basis of the inquiry report submitted  

by  the  Sub-Committee  the  appellant  had  been  fully  

exonerated  and  reinstated  in  service  by  the  Executive  

Committee of the SGPC by the resolution dated 01.01.2008.  

He further submitted that the order dated 04.01.2008 of the  

President  of  the  SGPC  accepting  the  resignation  of  the  

appellant  had  also  been  cancelled  pursuant  to  the  

representation  of  the  appellant  that  the  resignation  had  

been  obtained  from  the  appellant  by  coercion  and  

misrepresentation.   He  argued  that  the  Executive  

Committee  of  the  SGPC  had  actually  dismissed  the  

appellant from service for alleged misconduct by resolution  

dated 18.02.2008 without any finding in any inquiry that  

the appellant was guilty of such misconduct.  

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  on  the  other  

hand, submitted relying on the reply filed by the respondent  

that the appellant had in fact tendered his resignation from  

his  post  on  04.01.2008.   He  referred  to  the  resignation  

dated 04.01.2008 of the appellant annexed to the reply as  

4

Annexure R-2 to show that he had resigned from the post  

with  a  view  to  ensure  that  the  image  of  the  Shiromani  

Gurudwara Prabandhak was not sullied.  He submitted that  

the President of the SGPC accepted the resignation of the  

appellant on 04.01.2008 after deducting a month’s pay in  

lieu of notice with effect from 04.01.2008 according to rules  

and this would be evident from the order dated 04.01.2008,  

copy of which has been annexed to the reply as Annexure R-

3.  He submitted that under the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925  

(for short ‘the Act’), and in particular Section 69 thereof, the  

Executive Committee of the SGPC has the power to appoint  

and punish the employees of the SGPC and in exercise of  

this power the Executive Committee of the SGPC resolved to  

terminate  the  services  of  the  appellant  by  resolution  

adopted on 18.02.2008.  He submitted that the High Court  

has therefore rightly sustained the order of termination of  

the services of the appellant and this is not a fit  case in  

which  this  Court  should  in  exercise  of  its  power  under  

Article 136 of the Constitution interfere with the impugned  

order passed by the High Court.   

5

7. The first question which we are called upon to decide  

in this case is whether the appellant had resigned from the  

post  of  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  SGPC  or  whether  his  

services were terminated by the Executive Committee of the  

SGPC.  It appears from Annexure R-2 annexed to the reply  

of  the  respondent  that  on  04.01.2008  the  appellant  had  

submitted his resignation to the President of the SGPC and  

it  further appears from the Annexure R-3 annexed to the  

reply of the respondent that the resignation of the appellant  

had been accepted by the President of the SGPC, but  on  

28.02.2008  the  Secretary  of  the  SGPC  issued  an  order  

stating  that  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  SGPC in  its  

resolution  no.  173  dated  18.02.2008  cancelled  the  order  

dated 04.01.2008 of the President accepting the resignation  

of  the  appellant.   The  order  dated  28.02.2008  of  the  

Secretary of the SGPC extracted hereinbelow:-

“SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE SRI AMRITSAR

Copy of Office Order No.4073 dated 28.02.2008

Executive  Committee  vide  its  Resolution  No.173 dated 18.02.2008 while not confirming the  Resolution No.130 dated 01.01.2008 of reinstating   in  service  Sh.  Diljit  Singh,  Assistant  Secretary   under  suspension  (s/o  Lal  Singh)  Publishing  

6

Department,  Shiromani  Committee  has  instead  relieved him from service and has cancelled office  order  No.3465  dated  4.1.2008  vide  which  the  President had accepted his resignation.  Therefore  he should be considered as relived from service.

                                       S/d Secretary, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee

Sri Amritsar”   

Only  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  SGPC  has  the  

statutory power under Section 69 of the Act, to remove any  

employee  of  the  SGPC.   Therefore  the  acceptance  of  the  

resignation of the appellant by the President of the SGPC is  

of no legal consequence.  Moreover, the fact remains that  

the  Executive  Committee  of  the  SGPC  has  cancelled  the  

order  dated  04.01.2008  of  the  President  of  the  SGPC  

accepting the resignation of the appellant and has instead  

relieved  the  appellant  from  service.   We  are  thus  of  the  

considered opinion that this was not a case of resignation  

from service by the appellant but of termination of service of  

the appellant by the Executive Committee of the SGPC.

8. The second question which we have to decide in this  

case  is  whether  the  termination  of  service  of  the  

appellant by the Executive Committee of the SGPC by  

resolution  dated  18.02.2008  was  legally  valid.   The  

7

order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary, SGPC  

quoted  above  does  not  state  the  reasons  for  the  

decision  of  the  Executive  Committee  taken  in  the  

meeting  held  on  18.02.2008 to  relieve  the  appellant  

from service.   No  counter  affidavit  was  filed  by  the  

SGPC  before  the  High  Court  in  reply  to  the  writ  

petition. It appears from the impugned order that the  

writ petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court  

after the counsel for the SGPC placed before the High  

Court the cuttings of the local dailies  ‘Punjab Kesari’  

and  ‘Jag  Bani’ both  of  04.01.2008  containing  

photographs  of  the  appellant  in  embarrassing  

positions  with  a  woman.   In  the  reply  filed  in  this  

Court,  the  SGPC  has  stated  in  para  5  that  the  

appellant  was  working  on  an  important  post  of  

Assistant Secretary of the SGPC and was supposed to  

maintain highest standards and that the High Court  

has therefore correctly  passed the order maintaining  

the  termination  of  the  appellant.   In  para  6  of  the  

reply, the respondent has further stated that since the  

appellant  has  himself  admitted  his  guilt  in  the  writ  

8

petition filed by him, he cannot claim any violation of  

his right to natural justice and no prejudice has been  

caused to him.  From these facts, it is clear that the  

appellant  was  terminated  from  service  by  way  of  

punishment for allegations of misconduct.  Hence, this  

is not a case of termination simpliciter but a dismissal  

for misconduct.

9. The Executive Committee of the SGPC has in exercise  

of its powers under the Act framed the Service Rules  

for the employees of the SGPC prescribing their service  

conditions  which  include  their  appointment  and  

removal  from service.   Rule  4  of  the  Service  Rules,  

which relates to dismissal  from service,  is quoted in  

Mewa  Singh  and  others v.  Shiromani  Gurdwara  

Prabandhak Committee [(1999) 2 SCC 60] at page 64  

and is reproduced hereinbelow:

“4. Dismissal:- (a) The employee can be dismissed in  accordance with the below-mentioned rule by this  appointment  authority,  but  appeal  against  the  dismissal by the President shall lie to the Executive  Committee  within  30  days  from  the  date  of  dismissal.

(b) Any employee under the control of management  of  any  department  of  the  Gurdwara  under  the  Shiromani  Gurdwara  Prabandhak  Committee  may  

9

prefer  an  appeal  against  any  punishment  of  suspension, dismissal, fine, warning, etc. within 30  days from the date of issuance of the order:

(i) any employee of the Shiromani committee can be  dismissed  or  degraded  for  his  bad  character,  dishonesty, drinking or becoming a ‘patit’ but before  he is dismissed or degraded, the allegations in the  form of a written charge-sheet shall be supplied to  him along with the statement of allegations on the  basis of which the charges are leveled against him.  Representation  against  these  charges  shall  be  received from the employee within a reasonable time  and in case he denies these charges or  prays for  holding  an  enquiry  or  the  Executive  Committee  deems it fit, these charges shall be got enquired into  in the presence of the employee and for each item of  the  charge-sheet  which  has  not  been  admitted,  evidence shall be recorded in his presence and the  employee  shall  be  entitled to  cross-examine these  witnesses.  In case an employee wishes to produce  his defence, the same shall be entertained, but in  case  if  the  Enquiry  Committee  feels  that  certain  evidence is not necessary, it shall not be permitted  to  be produced for  the  reasons to be recorded in  writing.   Action  shall  be  taken  against  the  employees only when the charge is established.

(ii)  In  case  the  employees  wish  to  produce  any  record  or  document  in  their  defence,  he  shall  be  permitted to do so and if he asks for the copies of  these documents, the same shall be supplied to him  without any objection and he shall be permitted to  inspect the record free of cost.

(iii)  Every  employee  who  has  been  dismissed  or  degraded  or  removed  shall  be  supplied  with  the  copies of the report of the Enquiry Committee and  also the final decision of the Executive Committee  free of cost.

10

(iv)  (a)  The  record  pertaining  to  the  dismissal  or  degradation of an employee shall not be destroyed  for  three  years,  rather  it  shall  be  kept  in  safe  custody.

(b) If an employee is reinstated on exoneration after  his suspension, he shall be entitled to the arrears of  salary of the suspension period.”

10.    We find on a reading of Rule 4 of the Service Rules  

that an employee of the SGPC can be dismissed from  

service  for  bad  character  only  after  the  charges  of  

misconduct are established in an inquiry conducted by  

an  inquiry  committee.   Thus,  though  the  Executive  

Committee  of  the  SGPC may  have  the  power  under  

Section 69 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder  

to terminate the services of any employee of the SGPC,  

it  can  terminate  the  services  of  any  employee  for  

misconduct, only when such misconduct is established  

in an inquiry.  It appears from the inquiry report dated  

01.12.2007 of the Sub-Committee constituted by the  

Executive  Committee  of  the  SGPC  that  the  Sub-

Committee  had  accepted  the  explanation  of  the  

appellant that the photographs which were published  

in  the  local  newspapers  were  of  his  wife.   Thus,  

11

without a finding in an inquiry that the appellant was  

guilty of  conduct which had defamed the SGPC, the  

High  Court  could  not  have  taken  a  view  in  the  

impugned order that the appellant had brought a bad  

name to the SGPC and he had been rightly  relieved  

from service.

11.     The order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary  

of the SGPC terminating the services of the appellant is  

therefore not legally valid and is accordingly quashed.  

The impugned order  of  the  High Court  is  set  aside.  

The  writ  petition  and  this  appeal  are  allowed.   The  

appellant will  be forthwith reinstated in service.   On  

the  facts  and  circumstances,  particularly  having  

regard  to  the  fact  that  the  appellant  had  offered  to  

resign on 04.01.2008, the appellant will not be entitled  

to any backwages.  There shall be no order as to costs.  

……………………..J.                                                                (R.V. Raveendran)

……………………..J.                                                                (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi,

12

May 03, 2011.     

13