Allowed

Bhai Harjit Singh v. S.G.P.C. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2011CWP/6826/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a termination order issued against a Gurudwara servant for alleged theft. Finding that no enquiry was held and the guilt was unproven, the Court held that dismissal based on an uncorroborated confession violated natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned dismissal order dated 5.12.2008 was quashed. The petitioner was given one month to reply to the charge-sheet, after which an enquiry may be held.

Bhai Harjit Singh Vs S.G.P.C. and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.6826 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 01, 2011.

Bhai Harjit Singh

..... Petitioner

versus

Shiromani Gurudawar Prabandhak Committee and others ..... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶8

Present : Mr.Harshdeep Singh, Advocate, for

¶9

Mr.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Sudan, Advocate, for Dr.P.K.Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶10

-.-

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶15

The petitioner joined the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee as a Sewadar initially on daily wages on 1.4.1999 and later on his services were regularized vide order dated 27.7.2006. The petitioner's services were later on terminated vide order dated 5.12.2008 alleging that he was guilty of theft of Rs.100/- during the counting of donation box on 24.3.2008.

¶16

Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that no enquiry has been held into the allegations and he has been dismissed from service on the basis of an alleged confession.

¶17

C.W.P.No .6826 of 2009 2

¶18

The respondents have filed their reply-affidavit re-iterating that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and as such no enquiry was required to be held.

¶19

It may be mentioned here that while issuing notice of motion, a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 6.5.2009 stayed the operation of the impugned dismissal order.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In my considered view, it would be inconsistent with the settled principles of natural justice to assume that the petitioner admitted his guilt when there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed. The petitioner, if so advised, may submit a fresh reply to the charge-sheet served upon him, within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and if the same is found unsatisfactory, the respondents shall be at liberty to hold an enquiry and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶21

Ordered accordingly.

¶22

Dasti.

¶23

April 01, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Bhai Harjit Singh v. S.G.P.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhai Harjit Singh v. S.G.P.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhura Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Subhash Lubricant Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gian Parkash Vs Deputy Collector & Ors.

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Major Singh Vs Pspc Ltd. and Anr.