WRIT PETITION 11352 of 2000 on 7 November 1998

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

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

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

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated7.11.1998 (Annexure P-5), whereby he was relieved from service.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had putin about four years of service and his services could not be terminatedwithout holding an inquiry as per the rules.

Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that in this casethe Inquiry Committee had inquired into the matter and had filed its reporton 8.10.1998. A perusal of the same reveals that the impugned order is acompletely cryptic order, wherein even the averments made by thepetitioner have not been considered much less dealt with. In thecircumstances, it cannot be said that the services of the petitioner have been terminated by following the procedure laid down under the rules. Shefurther states that the point in issue is covered by various decisions of thisCourt including CWP No.8413 of 2001, Angrej Singh vs SGPC, decided on23.7.2008, wherein this Court held as follows :- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am ofthe view that the order Annexure P-2 deserves to be setaside since it has been passed without holding anyenquiry. In this regard, I draw support from thejudgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh's case (supra)wherein the Division Bench of this Court held asfollows :- “Shri B.S.Guglani, learned counsel for therespondent has also argued that all the employeesof the SGPC were required to strictly adhere to apious life. They have to maintain high standardsof life and should be persons of good character.Since the petitioner was found to be indulging incertain objectionable activities, his services couldnot be retained at a religious institution like SriDarbar Sahib. This plea has no reliance to thecontroversy raised in the present petition. It isindeed true that persons of high morale and goodcharacter should be associated with the affairs ofShri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, but an employeecannot be thrown out of the employment becausecertain allegations were made against him relating to his conduct and character. Due process of lawmust be adopted and observed in accordance withthe Rules. A bad employee can be thrown out ofemployment but only after following due processof law and observing the principles of naturaljustice.”

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the orderdated 7.11.1998 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. The petitioner shall bereinstated into service forthwith. The respondent would be at liberty toproceed further against the petitioner from the stage of suspension, inaccordance with law. As regards the payment for the period when thepetitioner was out of service, the question regarding the same shall bedecided by the disciplinary authority on the conclusion of the inquiry. Thepetitioner would, however, be entitled to all other consequential benefitsexcept for the period he remained out of service.

December 22, 2008. `kk'

( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE