PALANIAPPA PANDARAM Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMINISTRATION) AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner. He has filed a suit O.S. No. 115 of 1970 to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in M.P. No. 44 of 1969 wherein the petitioner herein has been suspended on four charges framed against him. It is unnecessary for me to elaborately discuss the charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner herein. No doubt, the petitioner was the hereditary trustee, according to him from 1945 onwards. In 1969, the Assistant Commissioner appointed three additional non -hereditary trustees to act along with the petitioner herein. Subsequent to this appointment, the charges were framed against the petitioner and specific charges were given to the petitioner. These charges were framed on 15th November, 1969. On these charges, the Deputy Commissioner suspended him. Against these charges, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the Commissioner and the same was dismissed. Against this dismissal of the revision by the Commissioner the petitioner herein preferred W.P, No. 3676 of 1969. Alagiriswami, J., at the admission stage itself, observed:

(2.) FROM the facts of the present case, it is very clear that the petitioner is more worried about the property of the God rather than serving the God as the Poojari. There are specific charges against the petitioner. The petitioner has failed in his prior proceedings up to the Writ Petition. No. 3676 of 1969. As at present, the petitioner has failed to get the injunction, both from the trial Court and from the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has come forward with the present revision petition.

(3.) IT is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herein was suspended as early as 25th November, 1969. Mr. Somasundaram, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the authorities concerned have not taken any steps to dispose of the charges framed against the petitioner herein in spite of the fact that the petitioner has submitted his explanation for the charges framed as early as 25th November, 1969. It is better that the authorities concerned dispose of this matter as expeditiously as possible and render justice to the petitioner without any further delay in the matter.