T. SOBHANADRI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ch. Krupavanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.

(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner-Senior Assistant in the 5th respondent temple, challenging his order of suspension vide the proceedings in Rc.No.Nil/2020, dtd. 11/10/2020. The prayer in the writ petition is reproduced as under: "It is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order of direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not revoking the suspension order dtd. 11/1/2020 as per the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.830 dtd. 18/8/1989 and in not paying the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner from January, 2021 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and contrary to Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings dtd. 11/10/2020 w.e.f. 10/10/2020 as he was trapped by Anti Corruption Bureau on 6/10/2020, but till date any charge memo has not been served and the petitioner is still under suspension though more than 1 1/2 year has passed. Any order, exceeding six months period of suspension has also not been passed under proviso to Rule 6(1) of the of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 (for short, "the Rules, 1987") framed in exercise of the power conferred by Ss. 37 and 38 read with Sec. 153 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act, 1987"), and as such continuance of the suspension beyond six months is illegal. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chowdary vs. Union of India,2015 Law Suit (SC) 177. as also the judgment dtd. 23/12/2020 of this Court in W.P.No.19625 of 2020 decided on 23/12/2020 to contend that the charge memo/charge sheet not having been served, even till date, suspension period could not extend beyond three months.