AMBATIPUDI SATYANARAYANA Vs. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI JAGANNADHA SWAMY, SRI ANJANEYS SWAMY & SRI VENKATESWARA SWAMY TEMPLES, LALAPET, GUNTUR TOWN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the orders of the 1st respondent removing him from service as confirmed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents by their orders dated 18.10.1985 and 27.2.1988 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

(2.) The petitioner who was very learned person in Vedas was appointed as 'Vedaparayandar' in the establishment of Sri Jagannadhaswamy Sri Anjaneya Swamy and Sri Vekateswara Swamy Temples, Lalapet, Guntur Town, on 1.7.1980 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 300.00 per month. Later on, it was enhanced to Rs. 525.00 per month and he became a permanent employee of the temples. While so, the 1st respondent in his R.C. No. B1/315/85 dated 10.6.1985 issued a charge memo to the petitioner containing four charges and required him to submit his written explanation to the said charges within a week. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 22.6.1985 denying those charges. The first respondent in his R.C. No. B1/315/85, dated 24.6.1985 stated that after considering the explanation of the petitioner, he found that the petitioner has been discharging his duties negligently and irresponsibly, and therefore, called upon him to explain as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service. This is a second show cause notice with regard to the punishment issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 3.7.1985 denying all the charges and also requesting the 1st respondent to consider the facts and not to remove him from service. On the very same day, viz., on 3.7.1985, the date of the submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the 1st respondent in his R.C. No. B11315/85, dated 3.7.1985 stated that after examining the explanation. it is proved that the petitioner was quite negligent and indifferent, and therefore, orders were issued removing the petitioner from service with effect from the same day, viz., 3.7.1985.

(3.) The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent passed an order dismissing the appeal in R.C. No. Nil, dated 18.10. 1985. There was any amount of controversy as to whether the order was passed on that day and whether it was served on the petitioner or not. It is not necessary for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition to go into the same. Ultimately, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 3rd respondent herein as requested by the Commissioner in his letter dated 13.8.1987 to the petitioner's advocate. The said appeal was taken on file and dismissed by the Joint Commissioner by an order dated 27.2.1988. While dismissing the appeal, the 3rd respondent stated that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of his misconduct, and that it is also a fact that the charges are not grave. Even so, the appeal was dismissed.