LexDILJIT SINGH BEDI versus SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE, SRI AMRITSAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2011] 5 S.C.R. 1048 DILJIT SINGH BEDI V. SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE, SRI AMRITSAR (Civil Appeal No. 3848 of 2011) MAY 3, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925: s.69 - Termination of an C employee of respondent-SGPC - Validity of - In a local newspaper some photographs of the employee appeared with a woman in embarrassing position - Inquiry conducted against him by Sub-committee constituted by SGPC - Explanation tendered by employee that the woman in o photographs was his wife and someone took those photograph from his bedroom - Explanation accepted by Sub-committee and it recommended reinst<Jtement - Executive Committee of SGPC resolved to reinstate him - However, employee submitted his resignation which was accepted by President E of SGPC - Thereafter employee made representation that resignation was obtained from him by coercion and misrepresentation - Secretary of SGPC relieved the employee from service on the ground that resolution to reinstate the employee in service was not confirmed by the F Executive Committee - Writ petition by employee dismissed by High Court on the ground that the employee brought bad name to the entire community and defamed SGPC - On appeal, held: Only the Executive Committee of the SGPC has the statutory power uls. 69 to remove any employee of the G SGPC - Acceptance of the resignation of the employee by the President of the SGPC was, therefore, of no legal consequence - Employee was terminated from service by way of punishment for a/legations of misconduct - Hence, it was not a case of termination simpliciter but a dismissal for H 1048 • DILJIT SINGH BEDI v. SHI ROMANI GURUDWARA 1049 PRABHANDHAK COMMITT., SRI AMRITSAR misconduct - Executive Committee of the SGPC can A terminate the services of any employee for misconduct, only when such misconduct is established in an inquiry - The inquiry report showed that the Sub-Committee had accepted the explanation of the employee - Thus, without a finding in an inquiry that the employee was guilty of conduct which had B defamed the SGPC, the High Court could not have taken a view that the employee brought a bad name to the SGPC - The order issued by the Secretary of the SGPC terminating the services of the appellant is, therefore, not legally valid and is quashed - Employee reinstate·d in service, without any c back wages in view of fact that he had offered to resign - Service law - Dismissal from service. The appellant was working as an Assistant Secretary of the SGPC. A news item appeared in the local newspaper in November 2007 with some photographs of· D the appellant with a woman in embarrassing position. The SGPC constituted a Sub-Committee to hold an inquiry against the appellant and the appellant was asked to appear before the Sub-Committee. The appellant submitted his explanation that the woman in the E photographs was his wife and he did not know how someone took those photographs from his bedroom. The Sub-Committee accepted the explanation of the appellant and submitted an inquiry report recommending that the appellant be re-instated in his post. On the basis of the F inquiry report, 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 G dated 04.01.2008. The 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 SGP\;, H 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R. A order dated 04.01.2008 of the President of SGPC accepting the resignation of the appellant was cancelled and the appellant was relieved from service on the ground that the resolution to re-instate the appellant in service was not confirmed by the Executive Committee B in the meeting on 18.02.2008. Aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2008, the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant had not only defamed the SGPC but also brought a bad name to the entire community and the c order dated 28.02.2008 relieving the appellant from service was rightly passed. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. Allowing the appeal, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.