MORUSUPALLI RAGHAVENDRA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, the 4th respondent temple is a public temple having been published in the year 1990 under Sec. 6(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') and the temple has got landed property and the deity Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy was worshipped by Sri Vyasaraya Theerthulu of Madhwa cult in ancient times. It is the further case of the petitioner that his great grandfather Sri Narasadasu got the deity and founded the temple by doing Pratista of the deity and had been the hereditary trustee-cum-archaka of the temple and later the petitioner's father succeeded the trusteeship and archakatvam of the temple and rendered services till his death in the year 1998 and after his death, the petitioner has been performing the archakatvam as hereditary right and the petitioner is being paid salary and also paditaram amount and he was given employee code No.4646. It is the further case of the petitioner that a Trust Board was appointed to the temple and Sri Jakkireddy Subba Reddy was selected as Chairman of the Trust Board and eversince his entry into the office of Trust Board, the Chairman used to harass, insult and humiliate him on one pretext or the other and in that connection in the month of August, 2021, the 4th respondent has given certain instructions to the staff of the temple indicating the timings and duties to be performed on day to day basis. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 16/8/2021, the Trust Board has passed a resolution authorizing the Executive Officer to take appropriate action as per law and for removal of the petitioner from service. It the further case of the petitioner that the Chairman of the Trust Board has made a complaint vide FIR No.305 of 2021, dtd. 20/8/2021, under Sec. 506 I.P.C. alleging that on 16/8/2021 at 10.00 a.m. a meeting was conducted in the premises of the temple among the members of the Trust Board and the Chairman has complained against the petitioner about the punctuality of his attendance and upon that the petitioner threatened the complainant with dire consequences before the members of the committee and that the said FIR came to be registered on the direction given by the Court pursuant to a private complaint lodged. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 18/8/2021, the 4th respondent issued a notice making five (05) charges against him indicating that he threatened to kill the Chairman of the Trust Board and behaved irresponsibly in his duties and he does not have the requisite qualifications mentioned in Sec.36(c) & (d) of the Act and even earlier the Executive Officers have recommended for action against him and immediately, he has submitted his explanation on 19/8/2021 requesting to drop the charges and to his surprise the 4th respondent issued the impugned suspension order with a direction to handover the keys of the temple, the articles and jewellery of the deity to Sri Vamaraju Venkateswara Rao, who is now allowed to perform the archakatvam service in the 4th respondent temple. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition for the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The 4th respondent-Executive Officer filed his counter, along with an application vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, inter alia, disputing the contents of the writ petition, praying this Court to vacate the interim orders dtd. 3/11/2021 passed in this writ petition. The main stand taken in the said counter is that the alleged charges imputed against the petitioner in memo dtd. 18/8/2021 are serious and grave in nature and the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending enquiry by memo dtd. 28/8/2021, taking recourse to Rule 6(1) of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 and the said order of suspension would not stand characterized or be termed as imposition of punishment and the 4th respondent does possess power and competency to place an employee under suspension and it cannot be construed that the order of suspension was passed under Sec. 37 of the Act and thus the petitioner failed to make out any case and relying on decision in 2006(3) ALD 161, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.