JUDGMENT : Pankaj Jain, J. CM-5387-CII-2023 1. This is an application for early hearing of the main appeal. Notice of the application. Mr. Virk accepts notice and submits no objection. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed Main appeal is taken on Board today itself for hearing Present appal is directed against the order dated 5th of December, 2012 passed by Sikh Gurdwara, Judicial Commission whereby a decree of recovery for a sum of Rs.20,882/- along with damages of Rs.2,000/- has been passed against the appellant. 2. Appellant admittedly was working as a Store Keeper posted at Gurdwara Sri Ber Sahib, Sultanpur Lodhi. As per the admitted facts, the appellant absented from duty w.e.f. 3rd of December, 1989. He was ordered to be dismissed from services for unauthorized absence vide order dated 30th of July, 1991. 3. As per the case of respondent/SGPC, Gurdwara Inspector visited Gurdwara Sahib on 10th of June, 1992 and found that certain items were short at the spot. It is claimed by the respondent that despite repeated demands, the appellant failed to deposit the amount of the short items, which led to filing of the present petition under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925. 4. Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the respondent has caused a loss of Rs.20,882/- to the Gurdwara Sri Ber Sahib, Sultanpur Lodhi, as alleged ? OPP. (2) Whether the petition has been filed by duly authorized person? OPP. (3) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged in para No. 2 of the preliminary objection? OPR. (4) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. (5) Whether the petition is malafide? OPR. (6) Whether the petition is beyond limitation? OPR. (8) Whether the petition is liable to dismissal for want of notice? OPR. (9) Relief. 5. After deciding all the issues in favour of the respondent/SGPC, the Tribunal passed the impugned order granting decree for a sum of Rs.20,882/- along with damages of Rs.2,000/- against the appellant. 6. Mr. OPR. (6) Whether the petition is beyond limitation? OPR. (8) Whether the petition is liable to dismissal for want of notice? OPR. (9) Relief. 5. After deciding all the issues in favour of the respondent/SGPC, the Tribunal passed the impugned order granting decree for a sum of Rs.20,882/- along with damages of Rs.2,000/- against the appellant. 6. Mr. Jaswal counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order submits that even if the averments made in the petition filed by the respondent/Committee before the Tribunal are taken to be gospel truth, it is evident from the record that inspection was carried out after more than 9 months from the order of dismissal of the appellant and about 2-1/2 years from the date he is claimed to have absented from his service unauthorizedly. He further submits that at the time of alleged inspection, no notice was given to the appellant and he was not associating with such inspection which lead to discovery of loss of items. 7. Counsel for the respondent is not in position to dispute the aforesaid factual assertions made by Mr. Jaswal. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case. 9. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, this Court finds that once the precise case of the respondent/Committee is that the appellant absented himself from duty since 3rd of December, 1989 and never turned thereafter, which led to his dismissal in the year 1991, the inspection w.r.t. articles alleged to be under his charge is of no consequence. More so, when the same has been conducted/prepared without associating him in such inspection. 10. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside.