M. DAKSHINAMURTHI GURUKKAL Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 22 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 8th January, 1975, confirming the order of removal of the petitioner from service made by the fifth respondent, the Executive Officer of Sri Subramaniaswami Temple, Vallimalai, North Arcot District as confirmed by the orders of respondents 2 and 3 and for quashing the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE petitioner is a hereditary Miras Archaka in Sri Subramaniaswami Temple, Vallimalai in North Arcot District for over thirty years. According to the practice and custom in the temple in regard to emoluments and perquisites of the Archaka, the petitioner should be paid 50 per cent of archana fees collected by the temple authorities by issue of archana tickets for the service rendered by him. He was suspended by the fifth respondent, the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam by order dated 20th April, 1971 with effect from 26th April, 1971 "till he was dismissed from service by a further order". The petitioner was dismissed by the Executive Officer by his order dated 11th April, 1972, on the ground that his explanation was not acceptable and the reason given by him for his absence in the enquiry said to have been held on 11th January, 1972, was not acceptable. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments against the order of the Executive Officer removing him from service was dismissed on 1st August, 1973. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras against the order of the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed on 15th October, 1973, and the further revision preferred by the petitioner against the Commissioner's order was rejected by the Government by G.O. Ms. No. 22, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 8th January, 1975.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 contend that the allegation that no enquiry was held is false and that the orders of suspension and dismissal were passed only by the Board of Trustees of the temple and were merely communicated by the Executive Officer of the temple. They further contend that it is not necessary that the order of dismissal should be accompanied by a resolution of the Board of Trustees and that it is open to the petitioner to obtain a certified copy of the resolution of the Board of Trustees. It is further contended that the petitioner had expressed his unwillingness to appear at the enquiry on 11th January, 1972, and that the Board of Trustees have unanimously resolved to remove the petitioner from service and the decision to remove him from service has been m rely communicated by the Executive Officer.