The benchmark appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld a previous order allowing a writ petition. The court rejected arguments distinguishing the instant case from prior precedents involving mandatory enquiry against religious institution employees.
Appeal dismissed; order dated 1.9.2010 allowing the writ petition stands upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 43 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision : February 28, 2011
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee ….Appellant Versus Prem Singh …. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate for the respondent.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
L.P.A. No. 43 of 2011 (O&M) -2-
Bench in the case of Bhai Raghvir Singh (P.4) stating that it did apply to the case of the writ petitioner-respondent by arguing that Bhai Raghvir Singh was a regular employee and, therefore, an enquiry was mandatory. Learned counsel has also submitted that there was no admission made by Bhai Raghvir Singh whereas petitioner-respondent Prem Singh has made admission with regard to the mis-conduct committed by him.
“A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner
L.P.A. No. 43 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
was appointed as Tractor Driver in the service of SGPC and as on the date of termination of his service i.e. 28.7.1998, he had completed 2 years service. There is some dispute between about his status on the date of termination of service but, in our opinion, that is not relevant for the purpose of determining of the questions referred to here-inabove.”
( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 28, 2011 JUDGE satish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the distinction based on employee status between the present case and Bhai Raghvir Singh is valid regarding mandatory enquiry.
Whether an admission made in response to a charge sheet by an independent agency makes a subsequent enquiry unnecessary.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhai Raghvir Singh v. The Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak CommitteeExplained¶11
Bhai Raghvir Singh v. The Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (C.W.P. No.7128 of 1999, decided on 14.3.2000)
Mewa Singh and others v. SGPCFollowed¶21
Mewa Singh and others v. SGPC, J.T. 1998 (8) SC 503 · Who else cites this
Inderjit Singh v. SGPCFollowed¶21
Inderjit Singh v. SGPC (C.W.P. No.4436 of 1999, decided on 17.7.2008)
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee
Prem Singh
M.M. Kumar
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
