DILJIT SINGH BEDIversusSHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE, SRI AMRITSAR

                       (2011] 5 S.C.R. 1048


A                       DILJIT SINGH BEDI
                                 V.
           SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK
                 COMMITTEE, SRI AMRITSAR
                (Civil Appeal No. 3848 of 2011)
B                          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, the Court

D      HELD: 1. Only the Executive Committee of the SGPC
  has the statutory power under Section 69 of the Sikh
  Gurudwaras Act, 1925 to remove any employee of the
  SGPC. Therefore, the acceptance of the resignation of the
  appellant by the President of the SGPC was of no legal
E consequence. Moreover, the fact remained that the
  Executive Committee of the SGPC cancelled order of the
  President of the SGPC accepting the resignation of the
  appellant and instead relieved the appellant from service.
  Therefore, this was not a case of resignation from service
F by the appellant but of termination of service of the
  appellant by the Executive Committee of the SGPC. [Para
  7) [1056-0-F]
      2.1. The order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the
  Secretary, SGPC whereby the appellant was relieved
G from service did 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. The writ petition was
H
     DILJIT SINGH BEDI v. SHIROMANI GURUDWARA         1051
        PRABHANDHAK COMMITT, SRI AMRITSAR
dismissed in limine by the High Court after the counsel       A
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 stated that the appellant was         B
working on an important post of Assistant Secretary of
the SGPC and was supposed to maintain highest
standards and that the High Court, therefore, correctly
passed the order maintaining the termination of the
appellant. The SGPC further stated in the reply that since    c
the appellant has himself admitted his guilt in the writ
petition filed by him, he cannot claim any violation of his
right to natural justice and no prejudice was caused to
him. From these facts, it is clear that the appellant was
terminated from service by way of punishment for              D
allegations of misconduct. Hence, this is not a case of
termination simpliciter but a dismissal for misconduct.
[Para 8] [1056-G-H; 1057-A.;O]

     2.2. The Executive Committee of the SGPC has in
exercise of its powers under the Act framed the Service E
Rules for the employees of the SGPC prescribing their
service conditions which include their appoin~ment and
removal from service. Rule 4 of the Service Rules, which
relates to dismissal from service states that an employee
of the SGPC can be dismissed from service for bad F ·
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 G
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 that the Sub-Committee had ·
                                                              H
    1052    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A accepted the explanation of the appellant that the
  photographs which were published in the local
  newspapers were of his wife. Thus, without a finding in
  an inquiry that the appellant was guilty of conduct which
  had defamed the SGPC, the High Court could not have
s taken a view that the appellant had brought a bad name
  to the SGPC and he had been rightly relieved from
  service. 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
c quashed. The impugned order of the High .Court is set
  aside. 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 appe!lant will not be entitled to any
0 backwages. [Paras 9-11] [1057-E-F; 1059-8-G]
      Mewa Singh and others v. Shiromani Gurdwara
  PrabandhakCommittee (1999) 2 SCC 60 - relied on.
                         Case Law Reference:
E       (1999) 2 sec 60             relied on           Para 9
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3848 of 2011.            '

F        From the Judgment & Order dated 3.4.2008 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 5587
    of 2008.
        S.R. Sharma, Balaji Srinivasan for the Appellant.
G       Jaspal Singh, Satinder S. Gulati, Kamaldeep Gulati for the
    Respondent.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by


H
       ·DILJIT SINGH BEDI v. SHIROMANI GURUDWARA            1053
           PRABHANDHAK COMMllT, SRI AMRITSAR
      A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Delay condoned in filing rejoinder       A
 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        8
 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 C
  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 o
  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 E
  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
                                                                     F
  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 appellant then made a
  representation complaining that his resignation was obtained
"'by coercion and misrepresentation and by order dated G
  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 H
    1054    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2011] 5 S.C.R.


A 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
s 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.
c      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 Sub-
  committee would show that the explanation of the appellant that
  the concerned woman was his wife had been accepted and on
D 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
E 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 SG.PC had actually dismissed the appellant from service
F 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
G appellant had in fact tendered his resignation from his post on
  04.01.2008. He referred to the resignation dated 04.01.200~
  of the appellant annexed to the reply as 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
H
    OILJIT SINGH BEDI v. SHIROMANI GURUDWARA        1055
PRABHANDHAK COMMITI., SRI AMRITSAR [AK PATNAIK, J.]   .

sullied. He submitted that the President of the SGPC accepted        A
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         B
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    c
adopted on 18.02.2008. He sub.mitted 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
                                                                     0
High Court.

      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           E
appears from Annexure R-2 annexed to the reply of the
resp·ondent 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       F .
 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          G
28.02.2008 of the Secretary of the SGPC extracted
hereinbelow:-



                                                                     H
    1056    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A       "SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE .
        SRI AMRITSAR

        Copy of Office Order No.4073 dated 28.02.2008

              Executive Committee vide its Resolution No.173
B       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 Department, Shiromani Committee has
        instead relieved him from service and has cancelled office
C       order No.3465 dated 4.1.2008 vide which the President
        had accepted his resignation. Therefore he should be
        considered as relived from service.
                                               Sid Secretary,
                    Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee
D                                               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
E 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
F 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
G 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 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
H in the meeting held on 18.02.2008 to relieve the appellant from
    DILJIT SINGH BEDI v. SHIROMANI GURUDWARA         1057
PRABHANDHAK COMMITI., SRI AMRITSAR [AK. PATNAIK, J.]

service. No counter affidavit was filed by the SGPC before the      A
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         B
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           c
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
petition filed by him, he cannot claim any violation of his right
to natural justice and no prejudice has been caused to him.
                                                                    0
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        E
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            F
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               G
     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                 H
    1058   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A      Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee may 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
B
       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
c      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
D      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
E      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.
F
       (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.
G
       (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.
H
    DIL.JIT SINGH BEDI v. SHI ROMANI GURUDWARA      1059
PRABHANDHAK COMMITI, SRI AMRITSAR [AK. PATNAIK, J.]

    (iv) (a) The record pertaining to the dismissal or             A
    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.".                                       8

      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.       c
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
                                                                   0
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,
without a finding in an inquiry that the appellant was guilty of   E
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.
                                                                   F
       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       G
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.

D.G.                                          Appeal allowed.      H