Mewa Singh And Others v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee .

D.P Wadhwa, J.— Leave granted.

2. There are 4 appellants. All are employees of the respondent, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), a body constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (for short “the Act”). They were, however, dismissed from service by order dated 13-1-1996. They approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 18-4-1998, refused to grant any relief to them and rather told them to avail alternative remedy provided under Section 142 of the Act by filing appeal against the orders of dismissal to the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission. Aggrieved, these four employees have approached this Court.

3. The appellants contend that not only did the High Court wrongly refuse to exercise its jurisdiction but the impugned judgment is contrary to its earlier Division Bench decision in Ajaib Singh v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee wherein the High Court held that Section 142 did not provide any alternative remedy to a dismissed employee of the respondent.

4. It is alleged that on 3-6-1995 the appellants were given the duty of taking pious saroop from Darbar Sahib to Calcutta. They were issued charge-sheets on 9-11-1995 for committing bad acts during their journey to Calcutta and for consuming liquor. The appellants filed their reply to the charge-sheets explaining therein that the charge of taking liquor etc. was not true. The President of the respondent after considering the replies filed by the appellants passed an order on 16-12-1995 imposing a fine on them. The appellants, it is stated, deposited the fine. In pursuance of the order of the President of the respondent the appellants were reinstated in the service. When the matter stood concluded, the Executive Committee of the respondent, it appears, took up the matter again and without holding any further proceedings by order dated 30-1-1996 dismissed the appellants from service. The appellants state that their dismissal is wrong as it is against the Service Rules framed by the respondent and by filing writ petition in the High Court they sought quashing of their orders of dismissal. They submitted that under Rule 4 of the Service Rules, an appeal lies to the Executive Committee against the order of punishment by the President of the respondent. Under the Rules, the Executive Committee of the respondent is the appellate authority. The appellants did not file any appeal before the Executive Committee and it, therefore, could not assume jurisdiction and order punishment of dismissal, particularly, when no inquiry as contemplated under Rule 4 was held. The respondent said that it was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court and that the appellants, if they felt aggrieved, could challenge the orders of the Executive Committee by approaching the Judicial Commission under Section 142 of the Act. It is also stated that the appeal lies to the Judicial Commission under Rule 4(b) of the Service Rules framed under Section 132 which have been framed in exercise of the powers of the respondent under Section 69 of the Act. The respondent then says that Rule 4(b) was wrongly translated by the appellants and that its correct translation is as under:

“(b) any employee under the control of management of any department of the Gurdwara may prefer an appeal against any order of any punishment, (suspension, dismissal, fine, warning etc.) within 30 days from the date that order is passed.

(i) any employee of the Shiromani Committee can be dismissed or degraded for his bad character, drinking or becoming a ‘patit’ but before he is dismissed or degraded, the allegations in the form of written charge-sheet shall be supplied to him along with the statement of allegations on the basis of which the charges are levelled against him. Representation against these charges shall be received from the employee within a reasonable time and in case he denies these charges and 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 employees 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 witnesses are not necessary for evidence, 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.”

5. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it may be useful to refer to certain provisions of the Act. Under Section 40, for the purpose of the Act, there shall be constituted a Board and for every notified Sikh Gurdwara, a Committee of Management and there shall also be constituted, from time to time, a Judicial Commission in the manner provided in the Act. The management of every notified Sikh Gurdwara shall be administered by the Committee constituted thereof, the Board and the Commission in accordance with the provisions contained in Part III of the Act. Chapter VI in Part III provides that the Board shall be known by such name as may be decided upon at the general meeting of the first Board constituted under the provisions of the Act. This Chapter contains provisions for the composition and constitution of the Board. Section 62 provides as to how the Executive Committee of the Board is to be constituted. Under Section 64, the Executive Committee of the Board shall exercise on behalf of the Board all powers conferred on the Board by the provisions of the Act which are not expressly reserved to be exercised by the Board in its general meeting. There is also a provision for delegation of powers of the Committee to a Sub-Committee. Then under Section 69, the Executive Committee is empowered to appoint employees and prescribe their duties. Sections 42, 64, 69, 132 and 142 are as under:

“42. Name of Board.—(1) The Board shall be known by such name as may be decided upon at a general meeting of the 1st Board constituted under the provisions of this Act, provided that not less than three-fifths of the members present at the meeting have voted in favour of the name selected, and that such name has been approved by the State Government.

(2) If the Board fails to select a name in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or the name selected is not approved by the State Government, the Board shall be designated the Central Board.

(3) The Board shall by such name be a body corporate and shall have a perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by such name sue and be sued.

64. Powers of Executive Committee of Board.—The Executive Committee of the Board shall exercise on behalf of the Board all powers conferred on the Board by the provisions of this Act which are not expressly reserved to be exercised by the Board in general meeting. But the Executive Committee may, if it so decides by a majority of three-fourths of its members present in the meeting delegate any of its powers to a Sub-Committee consisting of one or more of its members.

69. Servants of the Board, their appointment and punishment.—The Executive Committee of the Board may appoint such servants as it may deem to be necessary for the due performance by itself of its duties, and may from time to time determine the number, designations, grades and scales of salary, or other remuneration of such servants, and may at any time fine, reduce, suspend or remove any servant.

132. Power of Board to make bye-laws.—(1) The Board may in general meeting make bye-laws, not inconsistent with this Act, regulating its procedure, and the fees to be levied under the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 137, provided that the Board shall not, without the previous sanction of the State Government, make any bye-law—

(a) prescribing the form in which the budgets of the Board and of committees shall be presented;

(b) providing for the custody and investment of the funds of the Board and prescribing the procedure by which sanction of the Board may be accorded to the deposits of surplus funds in specified banks;

(c) prescribing the qualification of candidates for membership of the Board and committees;

and provided further that no bye-law falling within the purview of clause (c) shall impose any disqualification upon a Sikh only because he is a Sahjdhari Sikh.

(2) All bye-laws requiring the previous sanction of the State Government under the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, when made, be published in the Official Gazette.

(3) Bye-laws framed under this section shall have the force of law.

142. Right of interested persons to complain to Commission in respect of misfeasance etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or in the Specific Relief Act, 1877, any person having interest in a notified Sikh Gurdwara may, without joining any of the other persons interested therein, make an application to the Commission against the Board, the Executive Committee of the Board, or the Committee or against any member or past member of the Board, of the Executive Committee or of the Committee or against any office-holder or past office-holder of the Gurdwara or against any employee past or present of the Board or Gurdwara in respect of any alleged malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust, neglect of duty, abuse of powers conferred by this Act or any alleged expenditure on a purpose not authorised by this Act and the Commission, if it finds any such malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust, neglect of duty, abuse of powers or expenditure proved, may consistently with the provisions of this Act and of any other law or enactment in force for the time being, direct any specific act to be done or forborne for the purpose of remedying the same and may award damages or costs against the person responsible for the same, and may order the removal of any office-holder or member of the Board, Executive Committee or Committee responsible for the same and may also disqualify any member of the Board, Executive Committee, or Committee, thus removed from such membership for a period not exceeding five years from the date of such removal:

Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Commission, if it is made more than six years after the date of the act or omission from which the right to make an application under this sub-section accrues and, in the case of an application against a member of the Board, the Executive Committee of the Board or the Committee, if it is made after such period or after six years of the date of his ceasing to be a member, whichever is later.

(2) The Board may make a similar application to the Commission which may, in like manner, dispose of it.

(3) The Board or any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Commission under the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may, within ninety days of the orders, appeal to the High Court.”

The Executive Committee of the Board in exercise of its powers has framed the Service Rules for the employees of the SGPC prescribing their service conditions which include their appointment and removal from service. Rules 4 and 5 provided for dismissal and termination of services of the employees of the SGPC and they are as under:

“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 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 levelled 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.

(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.

5. Termination.—In case the Shiromani Committee at any time terminates any permanent employee, the Committee shall be responsible to give him a notice of one month or the salary for one month along with the admissible allowances. In the same way, in case an employee wishes to leave his service, he shall give a notice of one month to the Committee or shall pay one month's salary along with the admissible allowance.”

6. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee the services of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Manager in the service of the respondent, were terminated by order dated 2-5-1996. There were certain allegations against the petitioner that he was responsible for the disappearance of the wife of an employee of the respondent. Certain news items also appeared in the local newspapers of Amritsar. The Executive Committee of the respondent thereupon made an enquiry. Certain statements were said to have been recorded during the course of enquiry and thereafter the petitioner was served with the termination order. He was given one month's salary in lieu of the notice. He challenged his order of termination by filing a writ petition in the High Court. He pleaded that no show-cause notice or charge-sheet was served upon him and Rule 4 of the Service Rules was violated and that by not giving an opportunity of being heard, principles of natural justice were violated inasmuch as he was condemned without being heard. The respondent raised objections that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court even though it was created under the statute and that the petitioner did not avail alternative remedy against his order of termination as provided under Section 142 of the Act. The High Court referred to the provisions of Sections 42, 43, 64, 69 and 142 of the Act and also to Rules 4 and 5 of the Service Rules. It also referred to certain decisions of this Court showing that the writ would lie against the respondent. The High Court, however, said that the controversy before it was not whether the respondent was an instrumentality or even an agency of the State or whether it was the creation of the statute and that the real controversy was whether service of an employee could be terminated in violation of the Rules framed by the respondent which Rules had been framed under an authority conferred by the Act. It held that the petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was maintainable. As to alternative remedy under Section 142 of the Act, the High Court said as under:

“Section 142 of the Act, on a plain reading, does not appear to be relevant for the purposes of the present controversy. It confers a right on a person who has any interest in a notified Sikh Gurdwara to make an application to the Commission of the Board. This application may be in respect of any alleged malfeasance, breach of trust, neglect of duty, abuse of powers or any alleged expenditure on a purpose not authorized by the Act. On such an application, the Judicial Commission constituted under the Act may look into the matter and order the removal of any office-holder or member of the Board or the Executive Committee responsible for the act. It may also disqualify any member of the Board or the Executive Committee. It is thus clear that Section 142 does not deal with the right of an employee in respect of filing an appeal against an order of termination or dismissal. The plea raised by the respondent that an alternative remedy is available under Section 142 of the Act has no force and is rejected.”

7. A mere reading of various provisions of the Act and Rules set out above unmistakably shows that the SGPC is a creation of the statute and the Service Rules framed by it in exercise of its statutory power have force of law. Any violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules will certainly make the SGPC amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not find any basis for the SGPC to contend that no writ can be issued against it even if its action is contrary to the provision of law and the Rules framed thereunder. The SGPC is a creation of the statute. It has to act within the four corners of the law constituting it and the Rules framed by it under the powers conferred upon it under the Act. We do not think that any discussion is needed to dispel this argument by the SGPC that it is immune from the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The language of Article 226 does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of its jurisdiction thereunder. Subba Rao, J. in Dwarka Nath v. ITO AIR 1966 SC 81, (1965) 3 SCR 536 said that Article 226

“is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised”.

8. We have examined the provisions of Section 142. It does not provide any alternative remedy to an employee of the SGPC who has been dismissed or whose services have been terminated. Section 142 does not cover any such type of case. In our view, the High Court in Ajaib Singh case rightly held that Section 142 of the Act was inapplicable in the case and that the petitioner therein could not seek remedy under Section 142, which does not provide any alternative remedy.

9. In the impugned judgment we find that unfortunately the High Court sidetracked the issues raised before it which were fully covered by its earlier decision in Ajaib Singh case. The High Court in Ajaib Singh case had said that the writ did lie against the SGPC in a case where its employee was dismissed in violation of the Service Rules and further that Section 142 did not provide any alternative remedy. In spite of this clear statement of law laid down by the earlier Bench, the High Court dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment and asked the appellants to seek alternative remedy under Section 142 of the Act. The High Court, in our view, was unnecessarily swayed by irrelevant considerations while interpreting statutory provisions. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, does not stand any further scrutiny and is liable to be set aside.

10. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment dated 18-4-1998 of the High Court and allow the writ petition filed by the appellants in the High Court. Orders of the SGPC dismissing the appellants are set aside. They shall stand reinstated with all consequential benefits.

11. The appeal is allowed with costs.