The Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant judgment dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by former employees of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee seeking the release of their retiral benefits which had been withheld in connection with a controversy surrounding missing sacred copies of the Guru Granth Sahib. The bench, presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, held that while petitions challenging actions of the SGPC are maintainable in a court of law, the petitioners in these matters were not entitled to the relief of having their retiral benefits released because their suspension and termination had been effected following a duly conducted inquiry into the alleged misconduct, which was held to be in substantial compliance with the SGPC Service Rules and principles of natural justice. The dispute arose out of an audit of records in the SGPC’s publication department which allegedly revealed a shortage of 328 Holy Saroops of the Guru Granth Sahib, a finding that sparked deep concern within the Sikh community and led to administrative and disciplinary action by the management. The court observed that the petitioners, who had served in various capacities including as supervisors in the publication department responsible for the maintenance of the sacred saroops, were found to have taken unfair advantage of their positions by allegedly embezzling funds through unauthorized distribution of the holy scriptures, an act described in court as toying with the sentiments of the community. In upholding the actions taken by the SGPC, the court emphasized that the inquiries into employee conduct were conducted in accordance with the applicable service regulations and afforded the individuals a fair opportunity to present their case before disciplinary measures, including withholding of retiral benefits, were imposed.
In considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the former employees, the High Court examined the factual matrix which included the employment history of the petitioners, some of whom had been appointed as sewadars in the early 1980s and worked their way up through promotions before retiring in 2020. The auditors’ examination revealed a discrepancy involving a large number of sacred copies of the Guru Granth Sahib, and the SGPC instituted inquiries that culminated in findings of unauthorized distribution and misappropriation of funds. The court noted that the disciplinary actions taken against the employees were consistent with the objectives of upholding the integrity of the SGPC’s administrative functions and preserving the sanctity of the Guru Granth Sahib, reinforcing the principle that public institutions have an obligation to ensure that employees entrusted with sensitive responsibilities comport themselves with probity and respect for religious sentiments. By dismissing the writ petitions, the court maintained that the legal threshold for interfering with the internal disciplinary actions of a religious institution like the SGPC had not been met by the petitioners, who failed to demonstrate that there was any material irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice in the inquiry process that would justify the intervention of the judiciary.
The controversy over the missing saroops had broader reverberations beyond the individual petitions before the High Court. It had triggered extensive public attention and subsequent legal and investigative developments. The disappearance of the saroops from the SGPC’s records in Amritsar in 2020 led to widespread scrutiny and eventually resulted in law enforcement actions, including the registration of an FIR against multiple persons, reflecting the seriousness with which authorities treated the allegations relating to revered Sikh scriptures. The SGPC itself identified three employees – Kanwaljit Singh, Baj Singh, and Dalbir Singh – as directly involved in the misusing of offerings associated with the saroops and tampering with records, actions that were alleged to have defamed the administrative body and undermined confidence in its internal controls. In response to the unfolding probe, the SGPC declared that, following directives from the Akal Takht, it would not provide cooperation or records to the Special Investigation Team formed by the Punjab Police to investigate the matter, asserting that internal disciplinary actions and the directions of the apex temporal authority of the Sikh community were final and binding on the institution. The SGPC also maintained that its procedures for the issuance of sacred saroops were strictly governed by prescribed rules under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act and that all accounting was maintained in departmental ledgers, with proper receipts for offerings, countering assertions that improper record systems such as unauthorized diaries existed.
Parallel to the SGPC’s stance, investigations by the Special Investigation Team have involved continued police remand of key accused persons, including a former auditor of the SGPC who was alleged to be centrally involved in the disappearance of the saroops. Law enforcement extended the remand of this former auditor to further question him in connection with the ongoing probe, reflecting an active phase of inquiry into the case. Meanwhile, the matter attracted political attention, with various leaders and parties offering divergent views on government intervention and transparency in the investigation. Calls were made by some quarters for the SGPC to cooperate with the SIT and for accountability to extend to all those implicated, including scrutiny of ties between certain individuals and political figures, while other leaders criticized what they described as politicization of the issue and interference in the internal matters of the Sikh community. Allegations were leveled regarding the motives behind government actions and appointments related to individuals accused in the saroop case, illustrating the extent to which the matter had transcended purely administrative and legal domains to touch on broader societal, political, and religious sensitivities.
Against this backdrop, the High Court’s ruling on the writ petitions clarified the legal position regarding the availability of judicial relief for former SGPC employees whose retiral benefits were withheld as a consequence of administrative decisions taken in response to the missing saroops controversy. The court reaffirmed that where an institution such as the SGPC conducts a proper inquiry into alleged misconduct and imposes disciplinary consequences in accordance with its service rules, the judiciary will not lightly interfere with those decisions absent a clear showing of procedural unfairness or illegality. The dismissal of the petitions underscored the deference afforded to internal disciplinary mechanisms and reinforced the principle that employees cannot seek judicial redress to overturn sanctioning of benefits when their own actions have been found to contravene established rules and expectations of conduct. In its judgment, the court underscored the importance of upholding institutional integrity and demonstrated that in matters involving sensitive religious sentiments and institutional governance, courts will carefully safeguard the balance between judicial oversight and respect for established internal procedures, ensuring that justice is administered within the legal framework without disregarding the sanctity of religious sentiments implicated in the controversy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.