JAI SHANKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed challenging the memo dated 09.03.2009 issued by the first respondent directing the 2nd respondent to take suitable disciplinary action against the delinquent (petitioner) as per the rules.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the purpose of this case are that the petitioner is a Superintendent working in the 2nd respondent temple. In discharge of his duties he is alleged to have committed certain irregularities and in that connection a charge memo containing eight charges was issued on 12.06.2008. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer said to have been submitted his report with a finding that the Charge Nos.2,5,7 and 8 are proved. However, disciplinary authority on going through the enquiry report found that there was no case made out against the petitioner and thus dropped the charges by order dated 12.06.2008. By an order dated 6.2.2009, the Commissioner purporting to be in exercise of powers conferred under Section 38 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (for short, he Act) directed the 2nd respondent disciplinary authority to revisit the enquiry report and take appropriate action.

(3.) SRI Guru Gopal, Advocate appearing for Smt Ch. Kanakadurga, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the purported exercise of the powers by the first respondent under Section 38 of the Act is totally unsustainable in the facts of this case and further he contends that Section 38 of the Act contemplates only in cases where no action has been taken with respect to the matters mentioned therein of the subordinate authorities but not in cases where action has already been taken and an order on merits has been passed. He also submits that in the matters of disciplinary proceedings, there cannot be exercise of powers under Section 38 of the Act as disciplinary authority is required to consider the material on record independently and his decision cannot be the subject matter of further revision or scrutiny by the Commissioner. To support his contention, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in N. Ravindra Murthy v. Shri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Bonthupally, Medak District, 2008 3 ALD 372.