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