Kanwaljit Singh Kanwa SUS v. Shiromani Gu ani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committ mmittee
Case Details
1 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 1. Kanwaljit Singh Kanwa SUS VERSUS Shiromani Gu ani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committ mmittee 2. Sohan Singh Sohan Shiromani Gu mittee ani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee SUS VERSUS 3. Sukhdev Singh Sukhde Shiromani Gu mittee ani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee SUS VERSUS 4. Gurbachan Singh Gurbac CWP-1301-2022 2022 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responde pondent 2020 CWP-17734-2020 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responde pondent 2021 CWP-2952-2021 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responde pondent 2022 CWP-11503-2022 itioner .....Petitioner SUS VERSUS mittee and another ani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committe Shiromani Gu .....Responden ondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters 5. Baj Sin Singh SUS VERSUS 2022 CWP-15262-2022 itioner .....Petitioner Shiromani Gu ani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committe mittee and another 6. Gurmukh Singh Gurmu SUS VERSUS Shiromani Gu ani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committe mittee and another 7. Satinder Singh Satinde SUS VERSUS Shiromani Gu ani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee mittee 8. Parmdip Singh Parmdi SUS VERSUS .....Responden ondents 2022 CWP-2261-2022 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents 2023 CWP-4242-2023 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responde pondent 2023 CWP-4327-2023 itioner .....Petitioner Shiromani Gu ani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committ mmittee and another .....Responden ondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters 9. Jagtar Singh and others Jagtar SUS VERSUS Shiromani Gu ani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee mittee and others 10. Jujhar Singh Jujhar SUS VERSUS Shiromani Gu ani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committe mittee and another 11. Dalbir Dalbir Singh SUS VERSUS 2011 CWP-4924-2011 .....Petitioner ioners .....Responden ondents 2023 CWP-4991-2023 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents 2023 CWP-6725-2023 itioner .....Petitioner Shiromani Gu ani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committe mittee and another 12. Manjit Manjit Singh SUS VERSUS .....Responden ondents 2025 CWP-32379-2025 itioner .....Petitioner Shiromani Gu ani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee mittee and another .....Responden ondents .2025 Reserved on:-18.11.2025 Pronounced on: 17.12.2025 2025 .2025 Uploaded on: 17.12.2025 Whether only Whether full only the operative part of the judgm full judgment is pronounced? dgment is pronounced? NO YES PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for th e for the petitioner in CWP- 1301-2022. Mr. P.S. Guliani and Mr. B.S. G petitioner(s) in CWP-4242-2023 B.S. Guliani, Advocates for 2023 and 32379-2025. Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for ate for petitioner(s) in CWP- 2022. 2261, 15262 and 11503 of 2022. Ms. Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advo for petitioner(s) in CWP-4924- 2952-2021 and 17734-2020. Advocate WP- -2011 & CWP-4991-2023, CWP Mr. D.S Patwalia, Sr. Advocate Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Sullar Sharma and Mr. Sehaj Navjeet S respondent(s)-SGPC in CWP-17 2022, 2261-2022, 4991-2023, 1 & 6725-2023. ocate with Mr. Tajeshwar Singh, Sullar Mr. M.S. Virk, Mr. Mrigank vjeet Singh Advocate for 17734-2020, 2952-2021, 1301- 23, 11503, 15262-2022, 4327-2023 **** **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. This common judgment shal bove- t shall dispose of all the above mentioned w ned writ petitions as they arise fr atrix. rise from a similar factual matrix. However, for er, for the sake of brevity, the facts are cts are taken from CWP-1301-2022. 2. The present petition is preferred of the eferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution tution of India seeking issuance of a w for of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of ng of speaking order dated 15.11.20 urther .11.2021 (Annexure P-6). A further prayer is mad is made for the issuance of a writ in th ecting it in the nature of mandamus directing the responde spondent to release the retiral bene tioner, benefits accrued to the petitioner, including lea ng leave encashment, gratuity, provid of his provident fund, w.e.f. the date of his superannuatio nnuation i.e. 31.05.2020, with an intere interest at the rate of 18% p.a. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters FACTUAL B UAL BACKGROUND 3. The petitioner was appointed a ndent- nted as a Sewadar with respondent SGPC on 22. on 22.09.1982. During his service, the to the ce, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Clerk Clerk and thereafter Assistant. He ult ice on He ultimately retired from service on 31.05.2020 a 020 as Assistant/Supervisor. Alleged of the llegedly, prior to retirement of the petitioner, in er, in order to ensure smooth tran Holy h transition the record of the Holy Saroops of s of Shri Guru Granth Sahib in t of b in the publication department of respondent- -SGPC was checked and it was di ort by was discovered that they are short by 328. Conseq onsequently, a Sub-Committee was o this was formed to investigate into this incident whic t which submitted its report (Annexu retiral nnexure R-1). Meanwhile, the retiral dues of the pe f the petitioner were withheld, hence th ence the present petition. CONTENTI TIONS 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended the p t on that on 04.05.2020, t 020, the petitioner wrote letters to t arding rs to the respondent-SGPC regarding timely disbur disbursement of his retiral dues as he w .2020. as he was due to retire on 31.05.2020. In spite of th e of this, the retiral benefits were not im to e not released to him, causing him to serve a lega a legal notice dated 06.09.2021 to er, no 21 to the respondent. However, no decision was n was taken on the said legal not tioner al notice. Thereafter, the petitioner approached t ched this Court by means of CWP-20 posed 20928-2021, which was disposed of vide orde e order dated 12.10.2021, with a d ent to th a direction to the respondent to consider the l the legal notice dated 06.09.2021 as the 021 as a representation and decide the same within ithin a period of one month. Thus, th ed the s, the respondent-SGPC passed the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters impugned or ned order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexur nquiry nnexure P-6) stating that the inquiry should be all be allowed to conclude. Learned cou er the ed counsel submitted that neither the impugned or ned order dated 15.11.2021 (Annex dated Annexure P-6) nor the reply dated 08.10.2021 ( 1 (Annexure P-5) of the responde icated pondent to the legal notice indicated initiation of a on of any disciplinary proceeding aga ing of g against the petitioner or serving of any show ca ow cause upon him. Further, retiral d on the tiral dues cannot be withheld on the premise of a e of a pending inquiry. The act and nt has nd conduct of the respondent has caused severe severe financial hardship to the petitio petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned Senior cou SGPC or counsel for the respondent-SGPC contended th ded that a writ petition under Articles ion of rticles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not m s not maintainable against respondent t there ndent-SGPC. He submitted that there is no dispute ispute that SGPC is a public authorit tions. uthority performing public functions. However, th er, the Service Rules do not find t of the find their origin in any Act of the legislature or ture or exercise of the executive pow hough e powers of the Board. Even though the title use le uses the term ‘Rules,’ they me house y merely provide for an in-house procedure da ure day to day administrative and exe upon nd executive functions. Relying upon the judgmen dgments rendered by the Hon’ble S ry's ble Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education So on Society and another vs. Rajendr hers dra Prasad Bhargava and others (2023) 4 SC SCC 498 and Army Welfare Edu i vs. Education Society New Delhi vs. Sunil Kuma umar Sharma and others 2024 SC arned 4 SCC OnLine SC 1683, learned Senior couns counsel further argued that that while ity, its while SGPC is a public authority, its relationship w ship with its employees is private in resent ate in nature. The issue in the present case pertains ertains to destruction and mismanagem Guru anagement of Holy Saroops of Guru PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters Granth Sahib Sahib Ji, which indicates no elem eover, element of public law. Moreover, services rend s rendered by individual employees o arable yees of SGPC are not an inseparable part of the pu the public duties, thus, it would be im 26 of be improper to invoke Article 226 of the Constituti nstitution for rectification of private wr ate wrongs. 6. Furthermore, as far as Rule-ma y the making powers bestowed by the Sikh Gurudw urudwaras Act, 1925 are concern st be ncerned, three provisions must be mentioned i.e ned i.e. Sections 69, 132 and 139. It on 69 39. It may be noted that Section 69 does not exp explicitly state that Rules can be f ice of n be formulated to govern service of the employe ployees, Section 132 provides the with s the power to make by-laws with respect to pr to procedure and fees while Secti lation Section 139 talks about regulation making powe powers with respect to authorizing behalf izing one to receive money on behalf of the SGPC SGPC and prescribing format of mai te law of maintaining records. It is trite law that the statu e statutory provisions must be read i cified read in context of what is specified therein and n and nothing provided in the Sikh Gur es for h Gurudwaras Act, 1925 provides for any power th wer that would allow it to formulate R of its late Rules to govern the service of its employees. ees. Additionally, learned Senior co gment ior counsel referred to the judgment rendered by ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in s. ourt in Mewa Singh and others vs Shiromani G ni Gurdwara Prabandhak Comm and mmittee, 1999(1) S.C.T. 282 and submitted th ted that the Service Rules have bee ory in e been characterized as statutory in nature, with without indicating any source in their ce in the statute to support their formulation a ation and provide them with the force force of law. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters 7. He further submitted that on r and t on 18.08.2015, the petitioner and other official fficials conducted physical verificatio ported fication of Holy Saroops and reported an excess of 2 ess of 239. However, according to the s were to the ledgers, 328 Holy Saroops were found short. short. It was concluded that the missin ven to missing Holy Saroops were given to outside Sang Sangat and neither were any bills iss re the ills issued in this regard nor were the bheta (price) (price) received deposited with the Tr tioner the Trust. Furthermore, the petitioner reported that d that 80 Holy Saroops were damag short- damaged due to the electric short circuit that that occurred on 19.05.2016. Howev other owever, the eye witnesses and other officers had r s had reported that 14 Holy Saroops w ops were damaged. 8. Moreover, a proper inquiry was h now ry was held in this regard which now stands conclu concluded. The petitioner also particip rding articipated in the inquiry by recording statements an and signed the documents as req tioner as required. Moreover, the petitioner was called t lled to join the inquiry multiple ti n the iple times by issuing letters on the available add le addresses but his conduct revealed ipate. ealed his unwillingness to participate. The Sub-Com Committee filed its report (Annex tioner Annexure R-1) finding the petitioner guilty, being being the Assistant Supervisor wh intain or who is duty bound to maintain ledgers. It re . It recommended dismissal of the pe .f the the petitioner from service w.e.f the date of his su his suspension, after deducting the d roops the due bheta for the Holy Saroops from his ser is service benefits as well as withh of the withholding of the payment of the balance with with respect to his service benefits on eafter, efits on a permanent basis. Thereafter, the Executiv xecutive Committee vide resolutio .2022 solution No.117 dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure R ure R-2) accepted the recommendatio dations of the Sub-Committee. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for d that el for the petitioner(s) submitted that the question estion of maintainability does not ari tutory not arise as the SGPC is a statutory body. An inq n inquiry into the nature of duties per needs ties performed by an entity only needs to be venture entured into when the said entity is a , once ity is a private body. Moreover, once the Hon’ble S ble Supreme Court has considered th tutory ered the Service Rules to be statutory in nature in re in Mewa Singh(supra), the matter f of this atter falls beyond the purview of this Court. OBSERVAT RVATIONS AND ANALYSIS 10. Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record wi ord with their able assistance, it appea stions t appears that the following questions arise for adju adjudication before this Court:- (i) Whether a petition un the under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is mainta ent- intainable against the respondent SGPC? (ii) Whether the suspension ctive sion/termination of the respective petitioner(s) deserves to be trict be set aside for want of strict compliance with the Service Rul Rules? (i) Maint aintainability 11. The primary objection raised re lity of ised regarding the maintainability of the present esent writ petition against the res dwara respondent-Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak C dhak Committee (SGPC) essentially b ivotal tially boils down to a singular, pivotal question: wh n: whether the Service Rules framed ory in framed by the SGPC are statutory in nature. Lear earned Senior counsel for the ently r the respondent has vehemently PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters contended th ded that the writ petition is not maint Rules maintainable, arguing that the Rules governing th ing the service of the petitioner are . It is r are not statutory in character. It is their content ontention that the power to frame s licitly ame such rules cannot be explicitly traced to the to the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwara ently, rdwaras Act, 1925, and consequently, the relationsh ationship between the SGPC and its e in the d its employees lies purely within the realm of priv f private contract. 12. For proper adjudication upon thi ion 69 pon this subject, a study of Section 69 the Sikh Gurd h Gurdwaras Act, 1925 is warranted. T : nted. The same is reproduced below: “69. S 9. Servants of the Board, their appo appointment and punishment. – The Ex it may duties, design such s any ser e Executive Committee of the Board may deem to be necessary for the d ties, and may from time to t signations, grades and scales of sa ch servants, and may at any time fi y servant.” ts as oard may appoint such servants as the due performance by itself of its f its to time determine the number, ber, of of salary, or other remuneration of ove e fine, reduce, suspend or remove plied) (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the aforesa at the aforesaid provision clarifies that the Executive Co ive Committee is expressly empowere itions owered to ‘determine’ the conditions of service, in ice, including designations, grades, an hus, it des, and removal of servants. Thus, it can be reason reasonably inferred that the responden cutive pondent-SGPC, through its Executive Committee, h ittee, has been bestowed with the stat les to statutory power to frame Rules to govern the se the service of its employees. 13. Moreover, this perspective has a Judge e has also been upheld by a two-Judge Bench of the of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M re the Mewa Singh (supra), where the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters legal status o tatus of the Service Rules was assessed e D.P ssessed. Speaking through Justice D.P Wadhwa, the the following was opined: A mere reading of various provis “5. A t above unmistakably show that SG out ab d Service Rules framed by it in e and Se ve force of law. Any violation of have f ules will certainly make SGPC amen Rules igh Court under Article 226 of the High C y basis for the SGPC to contend tha any ba even if its action is contrary to the it even amed thereunder. SGPC is a creati framed ithin the four corners of the law within amed by it under the powers confer framed not think any discussion is needed do no PC that it is immune from the SGPC ourt. Language of Article 226 does Court. e powers of the High Court for t the po ereunder. Subba Rao, J. in Dwarka thereu id that Article 226 "is couched in co said th facie confers a wide power on the ex faci erever it is found. The Constitu wherev nguage in describing the nature of th langua d the person or authority and ercised.” (emphasis supplied) exercis rovisions of the Act and Rules set s set t SGPC is a creation of the statute tute wer in exercise of its statutory power the provision of the Act and the the amenable to writ jurisdiction of the f the find f the Constitution. We do not find d that no writ can be issued against inst the provision of law and the Rules ules act reation of the statute. It has to act law constituting it and the rules ules nferred upon it under the Act. We . We the eded to dispel this argument by the the writ jurisdiction of the High igh oes not admit of any limitation on n on on for the exercise of its jurisdiction 536 arkanath v. ITO, 1965(3) SCR 536 n comprehensive phraseology and it nd it stice the High Court to reach injustice wide stitution designedly used a wide of the power, the purpose for which hich be it can be ty against whom This position has been furthe gment further reinforced by the judgment rendered by ed by a two-Judge Bench the Hon’ble ingh on’ble Supreme Court in Diljit Singh Bedi vs. Shi . Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhand SCT handhak Committee 2011(2) SCT 795, wherein herein, speaking through Justice A.K g was ice A.K. Patnaik, the following was held: PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “9. Th powers the SG appoin which others S.C.T. The Executive Committee of the wers under the Act framed the Serv e SGPC prescribing their service c pointment and removal from servic ich relates to dismissal from servic hers v. Shiromani Gurdwara Pra C.T. 282 : (1999) 2 SCC 60 at f the SGPC has in exercise of its f its Service Rules for the employees of es of their ice conditions which include their ervice. Rule 4 of the Service Rules, ules, rvice, is quoted in Mewa Singh and and 9(1) Prabandhak Committee, 1999(1) uced 0 at page 64 and is reproduced 12 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters herein (empha reinbelow…” mphasis supplied) 14. Further, in St. Mary's Educatio Judge cation Society (supra), a two-Judge bench of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has a writ rt has emphasized that while a writ petition unde under Article 226 of the Constitut nst an nstitution is maintainable against an individual or ual or a body performing public funct at the functions, it is also pertinent that the specific act c c act challenged by means of the writ s with e writ petition has a direct nexus with the discharge charge of the said public function. It w unless . It was further observed that unless the employm ployment is governed by statutory rul an ory rules, the relationship between an employer an and its employees cannot be dee ature. be deemed to have a public nature. Speaking thro ng through Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the la, the following was held: “68. W 8. We may sum up our final conclus clusions as under:- (a) A mainta public otherw shown public functio seeking section An application under Article aintainable against a person or a bo blic functions. The public duty ca herwise and where it is otherwise, t own to owe that duty or obligatio blic law element. Similarly, for asce nction, it must be established that eking to achieve the same for the col ction of it and the authority to do so is icle 226 of the Constitution is a body discharging public duties or s or ty cast may be either statutory or y or st be ise, the body or the person must be the gation to the public involving the ascertaining the discharge of public blic was that the body or the person was or a e collective benefit of the public or a lic. o so must be accepted by the public. (b) Ev public discha confer jurisdi wrong elemen under of juri regula Even if it be assumed that an educ blic duty, the act complained of mu scharge of public duty. It is indispu nfers a right upon the aggrieved to risdiction under Article 226 for a ongs or breach of mutual contra ement as its integral part cannot be der Article 226. Wherever Courts ha jurisdiction under Article 226, eith gulated by the statutory provisions ting educational institution is imparting f must have a direct nexus with the the isputably a public law action which hich writ ed to invoke the extraordinary writ for a prerogative writ. Individual dual ntracts without having any public blic ition t be rectified through a writ petition rts have intervened in their exercise rcise , either the service conditions were were atus ions or the employer had the status PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters of "Sta found "State" within the expansive defin und that the action complained of h was efinition under Article 12 or it was of has public law element. (c) It discha its acti Court, of the relatin statuto functio sphere of a " challen actions contra recogn Consti contro remain It must be consequently held scharging a public function or perf actions becoming amenable to judi ourt, its employees would not have the High Court conferred by Ar lating to service where they are not atutory provisions. An educational nctions touching various facets of here. While such of those functions a "public function" or "public d allenge and scrutiny under Article tions or decisions taken solely with ntract of service, having no statuto cognised as being amenable to cha nstitution. In the absence of t ntrolled or governed by statutory main in the realm of an ordinary co be held that while a body may be performing a public duty and thus thus judicial review by a Constitutional onal wers ave the right to invoke the powers atter y Article 226 in respect of matter e not governed or controlled by the the riad nal institution may perform myriad ietal of public life and in the societal ons as would fall within the domain ain n to lic duty" be undisputedly open to the rticle 226 of the Constitution, the within the confines of an ordinary nary t be tutory force or backing, cannot be f the challenge under Article 226 of the of the service conditions being eing ould tory provisions, the matter would ry contract of service. (d) Ev unaide the ter for the an age employ employ cannot obliga discipl employ staff is employ such in the bas ) Even if it be perceived that im aided the school is a public duty wi e term, an employee of a nonteachi r the purpose of its administration o agency created by it. It is imma ployed by school to discharge that ployment of contract between a nnot and should not be construed t ligation to impart education. This i sciplinary proceedings that may be ployee. It is only where the removal ff is regulated by some statutory ployer in contravention of law may ch interference will be on the groun e basis of interference in discharge o t imparting education by private vate n of y within the expanded expression of aching staff engaged by the school hool ion or internal management is only only " is immaterial whether "A" or "B" is s of that duty. In any case, the terms of a school and nonteaching staff staff f the ed to be an inseparable part of the the his is particularly in respect to the y be initiated against a particular ular hing oval of an employee of nonteaching the ory provisions, its violation by the may be interfered by the court. But But t on round of breach of law and not on rge of public duty. (e) Fro no ele other w manda private ) From the pleadings in the original element of any public law is agita her words, the action challenged ha andamus cannot be issued as the ivate character.” inal writ petition, it is apparent that that In agitated or otherwise made out. In d has no public element and writ of it of of a s the action was essentially of a plied) (emphasis supplied) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters 15. The above-quoted findings were lfare s were also upheld in Army Welfare Education So on Society (supra), and most recently of the ecently, by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supr Supreme Court in Dileep Kumar Pa 025 ar Pandey vs. Union of India, 2025 INSC 749. . However, the ratio culled out in t rts the ut in the said judgments supports the cause of the of the petitioner than negate it as t ce of it as they reiterate that existence of statutory ser ry service rules would make the writ e the employer amenable to writ jurisdiction u ction under Article 226 of the Con on’ble e Consititution. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Cou e Court in Mewa Singh (supra) and has and Diljit Singh Bedi (supra) has already decla declared that the Service Rules of th ature, s of the SGPC are statutory in nature, the present ca sent case falls squarely within the exc ry’s he exception carved out in St. Mary’s Education S on Society (supra). The petitione e are titioner(s) in the present case are governed by ed by statutory rules, and thus, the d in the , the dispute does not remain in the realm of a pri f a private contract. (ii) Strict trict Compliance of the Service Rul ce Rules 16. Rule 4 of the Service Rules calls t upon s calls for serving a chargesheet upon the delinquen inquent employee, receiving his reply iry, if s reply and conducting an inquiry, if necessary. Th ary. The overarching goal of the said nsure e said procedure is clearly to ensure that the delin delinquent employee is not left wanti espect t wanting for information with respect to the discip disciplinary proceedings initiated a ntially ated against him, which essentially amounts to h ts to honouring the principles of nat imary of natural justice. Thus, the primary consideration eration must be to ensure that the proc plied e procedure is substantially complied with and no p d no prejudice is caused the delinquen inquent employee. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters 17. For ready reference, Rule 4 of t duced 4 of the Service Rules is reproduced below: “(4) TE 4) TERMINATION (MAUKUFI) (A) Th as per by the period The employees can be dismissed o per the following rules, but an appe the President can be filed before th riod of thirty days from the date of te rity ed only by his appointing authority appeal against the termination made ade in a re the Executive Committee within a of termination. (B) In etc.) g under concer days fr In case of any punishment (suspen c.) given to the employees of Gurd der the charge of Shiromani Gurdwa ncerned employee can file an appe ys from the date of passing of order spension, termination, fine, warning ning ents urdwaras and all the departments rdwara Prabandhak Committee, the , the 30 appeal against the same within 30 rder against him. (1) Any employee of Shiromani degraded or removed due to his taking liquor or falling in bad v degradation or removal he wou leveled against him in writing i appended by one Statement ofch charge-sheet has been framed supplied. The reply to such char employees within stipulated per the charges or seeks enquiry i committee deems it proper th charges will be got conducted i on every item of charge-sheet, w the evidence shall be taken in t the employee will also be pe witnesses. If the employee want then the same will also be cons would be necessary to bring into committee deems it proper th particular defence evidence, the lead the same. On proving the against the employee. There w abovesaid method in case of mani committee can be terminated, ted, tion, his misconduct, malafide intention, ad vices, but before his termination, tion, rges would be served with the charges duly ng in the form of charge-sheet duly ofcharges, on the basis of which the the be amed against him, shall also be charges shall also be taken from the the period and if he refuses to admit dmit tive iry in that regard or the executive r then the enquiry into the said said and ted in the presence of employee and ard eet, which he denies, in that regard in that regard in his presence and and the e permitted to cross-examine the wants to lead his defence evidence, nce, considered for some reasons, which hich uiry into notice in writing. If the inquiry r that there is no need for any any n to , then no permission will be given to aken g the charge, action will be taken re will be no need to adopt the the tion of temporary or under probation PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters employees, they can be removed desires to do so. er it oved by the committee whenever it (2) If the employee wants to pre document etc. in his defence the and if the copies of the same is the same will be provided to him will also be permitted to inspec cost. (3) Every such employee who ha or removed, the of executive c and the inquiry committee re provided to him free of cost. any o present any official record or any e then he will be permitted to do so o so then e is required by the employee then d he o him without any objection and he e of spect the concerned record free of ded o has been terminated or degraded ve copies of final order committee ittee l be e reports in that regard shall be (4) (a) removal record agains destroyed for three years; rath custody. The termination, degra gainst the employees shall not be t be safe rather it will be kept under safe egradation or (b) The employee who after his is reinstated is without any punishment shall be entitled for remaining s cent his suspension by holding innocent he in service, he ng salary of suspension period. (5) The Gurdwara Committee removal of any of its employee, the same to Shiromani Gurdwa the employee dismissed by S Gurdwara committee, be not en without the permission of comm no work be got from him, but person can be recruited as emp the permission of Shiromani co Shiromani committee, if it is pro of embezzlement, dishonesty or Gurdwara Prabandhak Commit such person.” ttee at the time of termination or n or n of yee, would send the information of and dwara Prabandhak Committee and by Shiromani Committee or any any ittee ot engaged by any other committee ommittee who has removed him and and but in special circumstances, such such with employee in other committee with ni committee. But in the inquiry of y of s proved that such person is accused used ani y or immorality, then the Shiromani age mmittee shall not permit to engage 18. A two-Judge bench of the Ho tate he Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Pat f Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) rough 96) 3 SCC 364, speaking through Justice B.P. J B.P. Jeevan Reddy, opined as follows ollows in this regard: PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters “12. It 2. It would be appropriate to pause hich ause here and clarify a doubt which one m e may entertain with respect to t The to the principles aforestated. The severa veral procedural provisions govern iries verning the disciplinary enquiries [wheth hether provided by rules made und 9 of under the proviso to Article 309 of the Co e Constitution, under regulations s in ions made by statutory bodies in exercis ercise of the power conferred by a , by by a statute or for that matter, by way o ay of a statute] are nothing but el s of ut elaboration of the principles of natura tural justice and their several facet n of facets. It is a case of codification of the sev e several facets of rule of audi alte inst alteram partem or the rule against bias. O as. One may ask, if a decision arrive es of rrived at in violation of principles of natura tural justice is void, how come a de n of a decision arrived at in violation of rules/r les/regulations/statutory provisions i can ons incorporating the said rules can be said said to be not void in certain situati eeds tuations. It is this doubt which needs a clari clarification - which in turn calls f tion lls for a discussion of the question whethe ether a decision arrived at in viola et of violation of any and every facet of princip inciples of natural justice is void. xxx xxx xxx 34. W . We may summarise the princip bove inciples emerging from the above discuss scussion. [These are by no means in are s intended to be exhaustive and are evolve olved keeping in view the context and text of disciplinary enquiries and orders ders of punishment imposed by an em an employer upon the employee]: (1) A ) An order passed imposing a oyee a punishment on an employee conseq nsequent upon a disciplinary/depar n of epartmental enquiry in violation of the ru e rules/regulations/statutory provis iries ovisions governing such enquiries should ould not be set aside automatical unal tically. The Court or the Tribunal should ould enquire whether (a) the provis ive rovision violated is of a substantive nature ture, or (b) whether it is procedural ural in character. (2) A ) A substantive provision has nor as normally to be complied with as explain plained hereinbefore and the theor e or heory of substantial compliance or the tes e test of prejudice would not be appli applicable in such a case. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters (3) In ) In the case of violation of a proce n is rocedural provision, the position is this: : procedural provisions are gen g a generally meant for affording a reason asonable and adequate oppor pportunity to uent the delinquent officer ficer/employee. They are, generall his erally speaking, conceived in his interes terest. Violation of any and every p t be ery procedural provision cannot be said to id to automatically vitiate the enqui cept nquiry held or order passed. Except cases f ses falling under 'no notice', 'no ing' 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' catego tegories, the complaint of violation ould tion of procedural provision should be exa examined from the point of view o such iew of prejudice, viz., whether such violatio olation has prejudiced the del delinquent officer/employee in in defend fending himself properly and effec has effectively. If it is found that he has been s en so prejudiced, appropriate order and rders have to be made to repair and remedy medy the prejudice including settin the etting aside the enquiry and/or the
Decision
order der of punishment. If no prejudice lted dice is established to have resulted therefr erefrom, it is obvious, no interfe this terference is called for. In this connec nnection, it may be remembered tain ered that there may be certain proced ocedural provisions which are of a hose of a fundamental character, whose violati olation is by itself proof of prejudic t on judice. The Court may not insist on proof oof of prejudice in such cases. As the . As explained in the body of the judgme dgment, take a case where there is ding e is a provision expressly providing that a at after the evidence of the emp the employer/government is over, the employ ployee shall be given an opport his portunity to lead defence in his eviden idence, and in a given case, the en that e enquiry officer does not give that opport portunity in spite of the delinquent r it. uent officer/employee asking for it. The pr e prejudice is self-evident. No proo d be proof of prejudice as such need be called lled for in such a case. To repeat, t i.e., at, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whethe ether the person has received a fair ngs. fair hearing considering all things. Now, t w, this very aspect can also be look w of looked at from the point of view of directo rectory and mandatory provisions The sions, if one is so inclined. The princip inciple stated under (4) hereinbelow king elow is only another way of looking PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters at the the same aspect as is dealt with t or ith herein and not a different or distinc stinct principle. (4)(a) )(a) In the case of a procedural of a ural provision which is not of a manda andatory character, the complaint o ined int of violation has to be examined from th m the standpoint of substantial com , the l compliance. Be that as it may, the order der passed in violation of such a p only a provision can be set aside only where ere such violation has occasione uent ioned prejudice to the delinquent employ ployee. (b) In ) In the case of violation of a proc of a procedural provision, which is of a manda andatory character, it has to be asce n is ascertained whether the provision is concei nceived in the interest of the person blic rson proceeded against or in public interes terest. If it is found to be the forme ther rmer, then it must be seen whether the de e delinquent officer has waived ither ved the said requirement, either expres pressly or by his conduct. If he is fo the is found to have waived it, then the order der of punishment cannot be set said set aside on the ground of said violati olation. If, on the other hand, it uent , it is found that the delinquent officer ficer/employee has not waived it or t be t or that the provision could not be waived ived by him, then the Court or Trib riate Tribunal should make appropriate directi rections [include the setting aside ent], side of the order of punishment], keepin eping in mind the approach adopted in B. pted by the Constitution Bench in B. Karun runakar. The ultimate test is a t of is always the same viz., test of prejud ejudice or the test of fair hearing, a g, as it may be called. (5) ) Where the enquiry is is not governed by any any rules/r les/regulations/statutory provisions s to ions and the only obligation is to observ serve the principles of natural justic ever justice or, for that matter, wherever such p ch principles are held to be implied pact plied by the very nature and impact of the the order/action the Court or e a or the Tribunal should make a distinc stinction between a total violation audi ion of natural justice [rule of audi alteram teram partem] and violation of a fac ined a facet of the said rule, as explained in the the body of the judgment. In othe t be other words, a distinction must be PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters made ade between "no opportunity" and i.e., and no adequate opportunity, i.e., betwee tween "no notice"/"no hearing" and and "no fair hearing". (a) In ) In the case of former, the order be rder passed would undoubtedly be invalid valid [one may call it "void" or nul such r nullity if one chooses to]. In such cases, ses, normally, liberty will be rese take reserved for the Authority to take procee oceedings afresh according to law, i said aw, i.e., in accordance with the said rule au le audi alteram partem. (b) Bu ) But in the latter case, the effect of rule ct of violation [of a facet of the rule of aud audi alteram partem] has to be ex t of e examined from the standpoint of prejud ejudice; in other words, what the C e is the Court or Tribunal has to see is whethe ether in the totality of the c e circumstances, uent the delinquent officer ficer/employee did or did not have a rs to ve a fair hearing and the orders to be mad made shall depend upon the answe ade nswer to the said query. It is made clear t ear that this principle No. 5 does rule oes not apply in the case of rule agains ainst bias, the test in which behalf a alf are laid down elsewhere. (6) Wh ) While applying the rule of audi ary audi alteram partem [the primary princip inciple of natural justice] the Court/ ays ourt/Tribunal/Authority must always bear i ar in mind the ultimate and over the ver-riding objective underlying the said ru id rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing s no aring and to ensure that there is no failure ilure of justice. It is this objective in ctive which should guide them in applyin plying the rule to varying situations ions that arise before them. (7) Th ) There may be situations where t blic re the interests of state or public interes terest may call for a curtailing of the . In f the rule of audi alteram partem. In such s ch situations, the Court may have rest ave to balance public/State interest with th th the requirement of natural justic riate ustice and arrive at an appropriate decisio cision.” dded) (emphasis added) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters Furthermore, a three-Judge be preme ge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.L K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of I while of India (1984) 1 SCC 43, while highlighting hting the importance of fairplay in ad quasi- in administrative, judicial and quasi judicial actio l actions opined that it must be see from be seen whether any deviation from principles of les of natural justice has caused an rough ed any prejudice. Speaking through Justice Sabya Sabyasachi Mukharji, the following w ing was held: “41. advers natura justice whethe princip each p fair pla objecti reason flexible compla absenc that pr followe case o Hidaya no dou is a gr of dism actual to him backgr of the infract before of this 1968 S "the do jacket of the charac of the 1. It is true that all actions against verse consequences must be in acc tural justice but whether any pa stice would be applicable to a parti hether there has been any infract inciple, has to be judged, in the ligh ch particular case. The basic requ ir play in action and the decision m jective manner with regard to the asons. We must reiterate again that xible and cannot be put on any rigi mplaint of violation of principles of sence of opportunity of cross-exami at prejudice has been caused to th llowed. See in this connection the o se of Jankinath Sarangi v. State idayatullah, C.J., observed there at p doubt that if the principles of natur a gross case this Court would inter dismissal; but there are cases and c tual prejudice has been caused to a him of a particular right." Jud ckground of the facts and circumsta the opinion that there has been fraction of any particular rule of na fore us complained in this case. See this Court in the case of Union of In 68 S.L.R. 104 : (1968)2 SCR 186, w he doctrine of natural justice cannot cket of a rigid formula and its appli the jurisdiction conferred on the ad aracter of the rights of the persons the statute and other relevant al or inst a party which involve penal or accordance with the principles of s of y particular principle of natural ural tion particular situation or the question fraction of the application of that that light of facts and circumstances of es of t be requirement is that there must be and on must be arrived at in a just and the relevance of the materials and and are that the rules of natural justice are in a rigid formula. In order to sustain a s of natural justice on the ground of d of shed xamination, it has to be established dure to the appellant by the procedure he observations of this Court in the the 392. tate of Orissa, (1969)3 SCC 392 re is e at page 394 of the report "there is atural justice are violated and there here interfere by striking down the order rder hat and cases. We have to look to what to a person by the supposed denial nial Judged by this principle, in the the are mstances mentioned before, we are een no real prejudice caused by by natural justice of which appellant llant ions See in this connection observations of India & Anr. v. P.K. Roy & Ors, Ors, , where this Court reiterated that that rait- nnot be imprisoned within the strait pplication depends upon the nature ture e administrative authority, upon the the licy ons affected, the scheme and policy n a ant circumstances disclosed in a PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters particu Hidaya v. Stat In our case, t associa premis circum justice Neithe delinqu rticular case". See also in this c idayatullah, C.J., in the case of Cha State of Mysore, AIR 1972 Suprem our opinion, in the background of se, the nature of investigation condu sociated, there has been no infra emises, for the reasons aforesaid, t rcumstances of the case, no infract stice by the absence of a formal op ither cross-examination nor the opp linquent is an integral part of all qua s of is connection the observations of Channabasappa Basappa Happali pali reme Court 32 : (1971)2 SCR 645 645. this d of facts and circumstances of this onducted in which the appellant was was nfraction of that principle. In the the and id, there has been in the facts and fraction of any principle of natural ural l opportunity of cross-examination tion the opportunity to lead evidence by the l quasi-judicial adjudications.” dded) (emphasis added) 19. Pertinently, a two-Judge bench Court bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Diljit Sing Singh Bedi (supra) opined that the , who at the dismissal of an employee, who was terminat rminated from service for bad chara it was character, would be valid if it was preceded by ed by an inquiry. Speaking throug , the through Justice A.K. Patnaik, the following wa ing was held: “10. 0. We find on a reading of Rule 4 t an ule 4 of the Service Rules that an employ ployee of the SGPC can be dis bad dismissed from service for bad charac aracter only after the charges of m n an of misconduct are established in an inquiry quiry conducted by an inquiry the iry committee. Thus, though the Execut ecutive Committee of the SGPC nder PC may have the power under Section ction 69 of the Act and the Rules ma the s made thereunder to terminate the service rvices of any employee of the SGPC ices GPC, it can terminate the services of any any employee for misconduct, on ct is t, only when such misconduct is establi tablished in an inquiry. It appears ated ears from the inquiry report dated 01.12.2 .12.2007 of the Sub-Committee tive tee constituted by the Executive Comm mmittee of the SGPC that the Su the Sub-Committee had accepted the explan planation of the appellant that ere hat the photographs which were publish blished in the local newspapers we ut a s were of his wife. Thus, without a finding ing in an inquiry that the appella hich ellant was guilty of conduct which PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 23 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters had de d defamed the SGPC, the High Cou view Court could not have taken a view in the the impugned order that the appell e to pellant had brought a bad name to the SG e SGPC and he had been rightly relie relieved from service.” 20. In the matter at hand, admitt eld in admittedly, an inquiry was held in dded) (emphasis added) pursuance of nce of the chargesheet. A detailed inq ble at led inquiry report is also available at Annexure R ure R-1, wherein the petitioner was it was r was found to be guilty and it was recommended ended that he be dismissed from se heta om service after deducting the bheta (price) from from his service benefits while while withholding ainder the remainder permanently. ently. Further, the petitioner was gi cross- was given due opportunity to cross examine the e the witnesses and lead evidence bu ttend nce but he deliberately did not attend any meeting eeting of the inquiry committee everal ittee in spite of availing several opportunities unities. As such, since the procedure linary edure adopted during the disciplinary action substa substantially complies with the Service ciples Service Rules as well as the principles of natural ju ral justice, the orders passed in furth ot be n furtherance of the same cannot be faulted. 21. In terms of the judgment render ch of rendered by a Constitutional bench of the Hon’ble S n’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Gh way, Ghosh vs. North Eastern Railway, AIR 1960 S 0 SC 992, the purpose of holding sh the olding an inquiry is to establish the occurrence of nce of a misconduct and thereafter, to ent, if fter, to pass appropriate punishment, if found necessa ecessary. The petitioner served the res in the he respondent-SGPC Supervisor in the Publication D tion Department, specifically in-charg Holy charge of maintenance of the Holy Saroops. How s. However, the petitioner has taken un ion by ken unfair advantage of his position by PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 24 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters embezzling fu ling funds from unauthorized distributi i Guru stribution of Holy Saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Sahib, thereby toying with the senti The sentiments of the community. The petitioner has er has been found guilty of misusing e was sing the Holy Saroops when he was duty-bound to und to ensure their proper maintenan ity he tenance, betraying the community he swore to serv to serve. In the given context, insistin linary nsisting on an exhaustive disciplinary proceeding b ing becomes rudimentary, especially ecially in view of the fact that th the subsequent te uent termination order was supported b a two rted by a proper inquiry. Lastly, a two Judge Bench Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court i t vs. ourt in B.S. Hari Commandant vs. Union of Ind f India and Others 2023 SCC OnL d that OnLine SC 413 has reiterated that the quantum antum of punishment must be propor fence. proportionate to the alleged offence. Speaking thro ng through Justice Ahsanuddin Amanu pined: Amanullah, the following was opined: “33. In Bhagat Ram v. State o 3) 2 te of Himachal Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 442, it was opined: “15. … It is equally true ust true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with t uct, ith the gravity of the misconduct, and that any penalty dis ty of y disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be the ld be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution... ” (emphas phasis supplied) 34. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union o this on of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, this Court, in the circumstances the raph s therein, commented, at paragraph no. 27, that: “… the punishment is so s s to so strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interfe d to terference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in jud n judicial review.”. 35. In Andhra Pradesh Industr tion dustrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. S N Raj Kumar, ( ourt r, (2018) 6 SCC 410, this Court exposited: PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 25 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters “ 20.… In the Law realm of Administrative Law rea “proportionality” is a p t is a principle where the court is concerned with the pro r in process, method or manner in which the decision-maker and aker has ordered his priorities and reached a conclusion or very n or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-makin n of aking consists in the attribution of relative importance to the s in to the factors and considerations in the case. The doctrine o s in ne of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exerc rule xercise — the elaboration of a rule of permissible prioritie orities [Union of G. India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 &S) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806]. De Smith [Judic tive Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1995), para 13.08 ade 3.085, pp. 601-605; see also, Wade : Administrative Law (200 also (2009), pp. 157-158, 306-308.] also states that “proportional est” onality” involves “balancing test” and “necessity test”. mits ”. The “balancing test” permits scrutiny of excessive one ent onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interests a e of sts and a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations. ns. (emphasis supplied)” CONCLUSI LUSION 22. Accordingly, the questions fram in the s framed above are answered in the following ma ing manner: (i) In light of the binding precedents re In l preme ents rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mewa Singh (supra) Cou ra), and Diljit Singh Bedi (supra) establishing the statutory nature of esta s, and ture of the SGPC Service Rules, and applying the exception recognize app tion ognized in St. Mary’s Education PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 26 CWP P-1301-2022 and others connected cted matters Society (supra), this Court is of Soc t writ is of the view that the present writ petition(s) against the respondent- peti -SGPC is maintainable. (ii) The The suspension/termination of the annot of the respective petitioner(s) cannot be set aside for want of strict com be s Rules compliance with the Service Rules when neither any prejudice has b whe quent has been caused to the delinquent employee nor have principles of nat emp of natural justice been violated. 23. In view of the discussion ab tioned on above, all the above-mentioned petitions are d s are dismissed. 24. Pending miscellaneous applicat stand pplication(s), if any, shall also stand ed of. disposed of. 25. Photocopy of this order be place nected e placed on the files of the connected cases. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE December 17 P.C ber 17, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.18 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document