7236 of 19960 decided on October 3, 1996 wherein the High Court held that Section 142 did number provide any alternative remedy to dismissed employee of the respondent.
They were issued charge sheets on November 9, 1995 for companymitting had acts during journey to Calcutta and for companysuming liquor.
Aggrieved these four employees have approached this Court.
was number true.
Certain statements were said to have been recorded during the companyrse of inquiry and thereafter the petitioner was served with the termination order.
High Court, by the impugned judgment dated April 18, 1998, refused to grant any relief to them and rather told them to avail alternative remedy provided under Section 1.42 of the Act by filing appeal against the orders of dismissal to the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission.
The appellants filed their reply to the charge sheets explaining therein that the charge of taking liquor etc.
In pursuance to the order of the President of respondent the appellants were re instated in the service.
President of the respondent after companysidering the replies filed by the appellants passed and order on December 16, 1995 imposing a fine on them.
They were, however, dismissed from service by order dated January 13, 1996.
In the case of Ajaib Singh vs. The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee the services of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Manager in the service of the respondent, were terminated by order dated May 2, 1996.
Action shall be taken against the employees only when the charge is established.
The Executive Committee of the respondent thereupon made an inquiry.
Appellants companytend that number only that the High companyrt wrongly refused to exercise its jurisdiction but the impugned judgment is companytrary to its earlier Division Bench decision in Ajaib Singh vs. The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee CWP No.
P.Wadhwa.
All are employees of the respondent Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee SGPC , a body companystituted under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 for short, the Act .
There were certain allegations against the petitioner that he was responsible for the disappearance of the wife of an employee of the respondent.
J. Leave granted.
There are 4 appellants.
The appellants, it is stated, deposited the fine.
It is alleged that on June 3, 1995 appellants were given the duty of taking pious saroop from Darbar Sahib to Calcutta.
