WP/27352/2005 of R.S.P.S.Dattu Vs The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road on 27 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner is a Junior Assistant-cum-Manager of Sri Ramesampet Group of Temples, of East-Godavari District. Through his orderdated 18-11-2005, the Commissioner of Endowments, the respondent herein,placed the petitioner under suspension, on the basis of certain allegations. Thepetitioner challenges the same, mainly on the ground that the respondent is notcompetent to issue the impugned proceedings, and that the allegations madeagainst him are not borne out by record.

Sri N.Gurugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 37 ofthe A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (forshort ‘the Act’), it is the Executive Officer of the Temple, or the Trust Board, that is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings, or to impose punishment on theemployees of Temples. Drawing the attention of the Court to Section 38 of the Act,he contends that the respondent can exercise the powers, if only the instructionsissued by him, under that section, are not complied with, by the Executive Officer orthe Trust Board. Learned counsel submits that the allegations against the petitionerare in relation to the expenditure incurred for the various temples, and each andevery item is covered by valid receipts and approvals from the competent authorities.

Learned Government Pleader for Endowments took notice at the stage of admission,and submits that the petitioner is very much amenable to the jurisdiction of therespondent, and places reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Courtin W.P.No.5736 of 2005. He contends that the truth or otherwise of the allegationsagainst the petitioner can be known only in the departmental proceedings, and it willbe too early to form an opinion at this stage.

The challenge to the impugned proceedings by the petitioner is twofold, viz., as tothe jurisdiction of the respondent, to pass the impugned order, and the existence ofbasis, for passing an order of suspension.

So far as the first contention is concerned, it is true that a perusal of Sections 37 and38 of the Act makes it clear that the power, to initiate disciplinary proceedings andimpose penalties on the employees of the Temples, is basically conferred upon theExecutive Officer, or the Trust Board, as the case may be. However, this veryquestion came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5736of 2005. Through its order dated 31-03-2005, the Division Bench took the view that the Person-in-Management of a Temple is endowedwith the same functions and dutiesas the Executive Officer, and thereby, he would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 29(6)of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

Learned counsel had placed reliance upon several judgments of the Supreme Courtand contended that the executive instructions issued by the Commissioner can not override the specific provisions of the Act. This Court cannot undertakediscussion on those broader aspects, when a specific finding was recorded by aDivision Bench, to the effect that the Manager of a Temple is amenable to thejurisdiction of the Commissioner.

Coming to the merits of the matter, it is impermissible for this Court to undertake anyadjudication or discussion on the allegations against the petitioner, at this stage.The petitioner can certainly submit his explanation, presenting his version of thematter, and the corresponding findings have to be recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

Arguments

This Court does not any basis to interfere with the impugned proceedings.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

Dt.27-12-2005.

Note:c.c in three days.

(B/O) KO