T V VELAYUDHAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was appointed as an Executive Officer, under the Madras Hindu Reglious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), served as an Executive Officer in Thanjavur in the year 1966 and on transfer he served in Sri Arasaba Vimohana Perumal Temple and Sri Prahmasira Kadeeswaraswami Temple, Kandiyur, Thanjavur Taluk from June, 1969 to August, 1969. Subsequently, he was transferred to Tiruchirapalli district, where he was serving as Executive Officer in Sri Madanagopalaswami Temple, etc., Perambalur. The Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam, framed certain charge against the petitioner with regard to his work as Executive Officer at Thanjavur and placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry by order dated 14th February, 1970. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Commissioner, who, by order dated 24th March, 1970, dismissed the revision. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam, to pass the order of suspension. His contention is that the authority competent to suspend him is only the Commissioner and that, in any event, as he was--serving at the time of the order of suspension--within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli, the Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam, has no jurisdiction to suspend him pending enquiry--even though the charges relate to his work as Executive Officer at Thanjavur.

(2.) The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, the second respondent, alleged in his counter-affidavit--that under Section 45 of the Act he had delegated his powers of disciplinary action including suspension in favour of Assistant Commissioner that by virtue of the delegation, the Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam, was competent to frame charges against the petitioner and place him under suspension pending enquiry, that in any event the petitioner being a Government servant is governed by the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and that the Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam, under whom the petitioner was serving at the time when the alleged lapses were noticed, was competent to place the petitioner under suspension, even though the petitioner was serving at the time of suspension under the jurisdiction of a different Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) The Act creates certain authorities for discharging various functions. Section 8 enumerates the authorities, one among them being the Assistant Commissioner. Under Section 14 (1) power is conferred upon the Commissioner to divide, with the previous approval of the Government, the State into divisions, each of which shall be in charge of an Assistant Commissioner. Sub-section (2) of that section states that an Assistant Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred and discharge the duties imposed on him by the Act or the rules made thereunder in respect of his division. Sub-section (a-A), which was inserted by Madras Act XVII of 1968, inter alia provides that without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (a), an Assistant Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred and discharge the duties imposed on him by the Act or the rules made thereunder in respect of all temples situated in his division other than temples included in the list published under Section 46. Section 45 confers power upon the Commissioner to appoint, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, an Executive Officer for any religious institution other than a math or a specific endowment attached to a match. The Executive Officer is required to discharge such duties as may be assigned to him by the Commissioner. Sub-section (4) confers power upon the Commissioner, for any good and sufficient cause, to suspend, remove or dismiss an Executive Officer. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 confers upon the Commissioner to delegate to an Assistant Commissioner any of the powers conferred or duty imposed on him under the Act, except the powers and duties referred to in certain sections. Among the sections so excluded, Section 45 is not one. Thus, under Section 14 (3), the Commissioner has got authority to delegate his power of suspension, removal or dismissal of an Executive Officer in favour of Assistant Commissioners. By virtue of this power, the Commissioner, by proceedings dated 6th February, 1968 delegated his power of suspension to the Assistant Commissioners in respect of non-listed institutions. The institutions in which the petitioner has served were admittedly non-listed. It is by virtue of this power of delegation that the Assistant Commissioner of Kumbakonam has purported to take action against the petitioner and suspended him pending enquiry into the charges framed against him.