Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds SGPC Service Rules Statutory; Sets Aside Withholding of Retiral Benefits Without Disciplinary Proceedings
Case Name: Kanwaljit Singh v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (Along with connected matters)
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2025
Citation: CWP-1301-2022 and connected cases
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Service Rules framed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) are statutory in nature and that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are maintainable against the SGPC in service matters governed by such rules. The Court further held that retiral benefits cannot be withheld in the absence of initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings in strict compliance with the Service Rules and principles of natural justice.
Summary: A batch of writ petitions was filed by retired and serving employees of the SGPC challenging orders whereby their retiral benefits were withheld or adverse service actions were taken on the ground of alleged mismanagement and loss of Holy Saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib. The lead petitioner had retired on 31 May 2020, but his gratuity, provident fund and other retiral dues were withheld pursuant to a speaking order dated 15 November 2021, despite no charge-sheet having been served upon him prior to retirement.
The SGPC raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, contending that although it performs public functions, the relationship between SGPC and its employees is contractual and private, and that its Service Rules are non-statutory. Reliance was placed on recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with private educational institutions.
The High Court rejected the objection and undertook a detailed examination of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, particularly Section 69. The Court held that the Executive Committee of the SGPC is statutorily empowered to appoint, regulate, suspend and remove its employees, and that the Service Rules framed in exercise of such power have statutory force. Reliance was placed on binding Supreme Court precedents including Mewa Singh v. SGPC and Diljit Singh Bedi v. SGPC, which conclusively held that SGPC Service Rules are statutory and that SGPC is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
On merits, the Court found that although an internal inquiry by a Sub-Committee was conducted, no charge-sheet was issued, no disciplinary proceedings were formally initiated, and no opportunity of defence in accordance with Rule 4 of the Service Rules was afforded to the petitioners. The Court held that internal fact-finding exercises cannot substitute disciplinary proceedings mandated under statutory rules.
The Court reiterated that withholding of retiral benefits amounts to a serious civil consequence and cannot be sustained unless preceded by lawful disciplinary action. The mere pendency or conclusion of an internal inquiry, without adherence to prescribed procedure, was held insufficient to justify denial of retiral dues.
Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders withholding retiral benefits were set aside. The SGPC was directed to release the retiral dues of the petitioners in accordance with law. Liberty was reserved to the SGPC to proceed against the petitioners strictly in accordance with the Service Rules, if so advised.