KIRPAL SINGH Vs. SGPC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONING the validity, legality and propriety of the order No. 889 dated 25.9.2001 (Annexure P -15) relieving the petitioner from service of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/ of the Constitution of India. It may be useful to briefly refer to the factual background of the case as emerged from the record.

(2.) THE respondent -Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee is a statutory body constituted under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (Punjab act No. 8 of 1925). The petitioner was engaged/appointed as an Assistant Ragi on 1.12.1974 and came to be confirmed as such vide order No. 860 dated 1.1.1975 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Assistant Manager, Sri Darbar Saheb, Sri Amritsar with effect from the date of his appointment. He was later on appointed as a Jathedar Ragi vide order No. 295 dated 5.6.1980 passed by the Addl. Manager, Sri Darbar Saheb, Sri Amritsar (Annexure P -2). While serving in the said capacity, the petitioner applied for leave vide his application dated 2.4.2001 (Annexure P -3) for going abroad from 2.5.2001 to 31.10.2001. He also indicated his address abroad. The application (Annexure P -3) was submitted one month in advance as per the prescribed norms. This application (Annexure P -3) was recommended for sanction by the Manager to the Secretary, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee at Amritsar vide his letter dated 6.4.2001 (Annexure P -4). A reminder dated 16.5.2001 (Annexure P -5) appears to have been forwarded for sanction of leave on the ground that other members of the Jatha have already been granted visas. He also requested for sanction of leave from 17.5.2001 to 16.11.2001. The petitioner proceeded on leave on 17.5.2001 allegedly in view of expiry of visa on the said date. It is admitted case of the parties that till then leave of the petitioner had not been sanctioned. However, subsequently, the respondent -employer sanctioned the leave of the petitioner for a period of three months which was to expire on 15.8.2001. The petitioner did not join duty, on expiry of sanctioned leave and applied for extension of leave vide his letter dated 14.8.2001 (Annexure P -6). It has been brought on record that even prior to that one Gubinder Singh Randhawa, Chief Sewadar of Gursikh Sabha, Canada had also requested the Manager, Sahib Darbar Sahib, Sri Amritsar for extension of leave of the petitioner vide his letter dated 7.8.2001 (Annexure R -3). The respondent -Management rejected the request of the petitioner for extension of leave and asked him to report for duty immediately, vide order No. 4359 dated 8.9.2001 (Annexure P -7). It is alleged that this notice/order was sent to the petitioner under registered cover on 10.9.2001 which was received by him on 24.9.2001 and simultaneously another letter dated 10.4.2001 was posted by ordinary post which was received by him on 24.9.2001. Copy of the postal receipt is placed on record as Annexure P -8. It is further alleged that the petitioner had already got his seat booked for 17.9.2001. However, on account of disturbances in America, the Air Flight was affected and the seat of the petitioner was cancelled. He, however, again booked his seat for 7.10.2001 and faxed an intimation in this respect on 14.9.2001 vide Annexures P -9 and P -10. It is admitted case of the parties that the letter of the petitioner dated 14.9.2001 was placed before the Secretary. It is further alleged in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that on receipt of the intimation that extension of leave has been declined and he is required to report for duty, the petitioner informed the Manager that he is reporting for duty on 9/10.10.2001 vide his letter dated 15.9.2001 (Annexure P -11). It appears that on 24.9.2001, the case of the petitioner was considered by the President and vide the impugned order dated 25.9.2001 (Annexure P -15), the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. It has also been indicated in the impugned order (Annexure P -15) that the President has also taken the opinion of the legal advisor. The petitioner was relieved from service on account of remaining absent from duty continuously from 15.8.2001 and not reporting for duty, despite registered notice.

(3.) THE plea of the petitioner is resisted by the respondent on the ground that registered notice was forwarded to the petitioner on 6.9.2001, but he avoided the receipt and the registered notice sent on 6.9.2001 was redirected to the sender. Xerox copies of the postal receipt dated 26.9.2001 and the registered envelop mentioning the words " Redirected to the Sender" are placed on record as Annexures R -5 and R -6 with application being C.M. No. 4356 of 2006. The respondent has also placed on record copy of the letter dated 5.9.2001 as Annexure R -1 which was allegedly sent to the petitioner. In this letter, it has been stated that even though earlier three months leave was sanctioned which expired on 15.8.2001 and request of the petitioner for further extension of leave was not acceded to, accordingly, the petitioner was asked to join duty within seven days from the date of issue of letter. It is, however, admitted case of the parties that this letter was never received by the petitioner as the registered envelop was returned back to the sender.