MAJOR SINGH Vs. SHIROMANI GUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Manager in Gurdwara Sahib Gang Sar, Jaito, Faridkot. His services were terminated vide resolution dated 13.12.1992 on the allegations of embezzlement. The present petition has been filed seeking reinstatement on the basis of the communication/ clarification dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) of the Judicial Commission, Amritsar, whereby though it has been directed that after the deposit of the alleged embezzled amount by the petitioner, no disqualification stands against him but he was not directed to be reinstated. The claim of the petitioner is that he should be reinstated in service as the disqualification does not stand against him.

(2.) Briefly the pleaded facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Granthi in Gurdwara Sahib, Patto Heera Singh, District Moga, on 1.11.1986. Thereafter, he was promoted as Manager on 30.12.1986. While he was working as Manager in Gurdwara Sahib Gang Sar, Jaito, Faridkot, his services were terminated vide resolution dated 13.12.1992 on the allegations that he had misappropriated the Gurdwara Funds. A case was also registered against him on 19.2.1996. The embezzled amount was Rs. 54,080.50. The petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order of termination. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (for short, 'the Committee') filed a petition under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 for recovery of Rs. 50,485/- against the petitioner. The petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte and finally an ex-parte order was passed against him for recovery of Rs. 50,485/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of decretal amount. Rs. 20,000/- was awarded as damages. The petitioner was also disqualified from becoming member/ employee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board for a period of five years. The petitioner filed application for setting aside of ex-parte decree, which was allowed by the Commission vide order dated 17.1.2008, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

(3.) On 24.3.2008, the petitioner deposited the cost imposed for setting aside of the ex-parte decree and the decretal amount, as a result of which vide order dated 26.3.2008, the petition filed by the Committee was dismissed as infructuous and the decree passed against the petitioner was set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation for taking him back in service on 5.4.2008. Clarification was also sought from the Commission regarding the order passed on 26.3.2008 pertaining to his disqualification. Vide communication dated 6.1.2009, the Commission clarified that as the petitioner had deposited the entire amount due against him and the petition filed by the Committee had been dismissed as infructuous as such there was no disqualification against the petitioner nor any decree was standing against him. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once there was no disqualification against the petitioner and the entire amount embezzled by him had been deposited with the Committee, he is entitled to reinstatement in service.