Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the woman, who was with the appellant in the photographs, was appellants wife and the inquiry report submitted by the Sub Committee would show that the explanation of the appellant that the companycerned woman was his wife had been accepted and on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Sub Committee the appellant had been fully exonerated and reinstated in service by the Executive Committee of the SGPC by the resolution dated 01.01.2008.
In case an employee wishes to produce his defence, the same shall be entertained, but in case if the Enquiry Committee feels that certain evidence is number necessary, it shall number be permitted to be produced for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
Action shall be taken against the employees only when the charge is established.
He further submitted that the order dated 04.01.2008 of the President of the SGPC accepting the resignation of the appellant had also been cancelled pursuant to the representation of the appellant that the resignation had been obtained from the appellant by companyrcion and misrepresentation.
By the impugned order dated 03.04.2008, the High Court dismissed the writ petition after holding that the appellant had number only defamed the SGPC but also brought a bad name to the entire companymunity and the order dated 28.02.2008 relieving the appellant from service had been rightly passed.
He argued that the Executive Committee of the SGPC had actually dismissed the appellant from service for alleged misconduct by resolution dated 18.02.2008 without any finding in any inquiry that the appellant was guilty of such misconduct.
Aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary, SGPC, relieving the appellant from service, the appellant filed writ petition, CWP No.5587 of 2008, before the High Court.
The SGPC companystituted a Sub Committee to hold an inquiry against the appellant and the appellant was asked to appear before the Sub Committee on 22.11.2007 at 10.00 A.M. in the Meeting House, Sri Guru Nanak Niwas, Sri Amritsar.
The appellant then made a representation companyplaining that his resignation was obtained by companyrcion and misrepresentation and by order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary of the SGPC, the order dated 04.01.2008 of the President of the SGPC accepting the resignation of the appellant was cancelled and the appellant was relieved from service on the ground that the resolution of the Executive Committee adopted on 01.01.2008 to reinstate the appellant in service was number companyfirmed by the Executive Committee in the meeting on 18.02.2008.
The Sub Committee accepted the explanation of the appellant and submitted an inquiry report dated 01.12.2007 recommending that the appellant be reinstated in his post.
On 04.01.2008, however, the appellant submitted his resignation and the resignation was accepted by the President of the SGPC by order dated 04.01.2008.
The relevant facts very briefly are that the appellant was working as an Assistant Secretary of the SGPC at Amritsar when a news item was published in the local dailies in November 2007 with some photographs of the appellant with a woman in embarrassing positions.
The appellant submitted his explanation that the photographs were that of himself and his wife and he did number know how someone has taken these from his bedroom.
On the basis of the inquiry report of the Sub Committee, the Executive Committee of the SGPC in its meeting on 01.01.2008 resolved to reinstate the appellant in service.
This is an appeal against the order dated 03.04.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the writ petition CWP No.5587 of 2008 of the appellant challenging his termination from service under the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee for short the SGPC .
K. PATNAIK, J. Delay companydoned in filing rejoinder affidavit.
Leave granted.
