PAPPU VENKATA RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Junior Assistant, working as Manager of Kothapatnam Group Temples, Prakasam District, (prior to his suspension), seeks issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto that the 2nd respondent is not competent to hold office of "Commissioner of Endowments" in view of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A declaration is also sought that the Commissioner of Endowments, 1st respondent, does not have the power to suspend the petitioner or to frame charges against him. Consequential directions are sought to set aside the order dated 20-7-2005 whereby the 1 st respondent, while framing seven charges and directing that he be placed under suspension, called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charges framed against him.

(2.) Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner, a temple employee, originally appointed as Junior Assistant in Inkollu Group of Temples of Prakasam District on 11-2-1985, was transferred to Chadalawada Group Temples of Prakasam district in the year 1998. While the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant at Chadalawada group temples, the 1st respondent utilized his services and, in exercise of the powers under Section 29(5) of the Act, authorized the petitioner vide proceedings dated 30-08-2001, to act as the person in management of Kothapatnam Group temples. It is stated that subsequently some institutions were added and some deleted from Kothapatnam group temples, though the petitioner was working as the person in management, (nomenclature of which was subsequently changed as Manager), he was continued in the substantive post held by him i.e, Junior Assistant. It is further stated that, in the order of authorization, it was specified that the petitioner's services, as person in-charge, would not entitle him to make any claim for any purpose and that he would be treated as junior assistant only. Petitioner contends that his posting as person in-charge/manager is akin to that of deputation.

(3.) Sri N. Gurugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent does not possess the qualifications prescribed for being appointed as the Commissioner of Endowments as he has not completed 45 years of age, as prescribed in the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act, and his appointment, as such, is without authority of law, ab initio void, and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that since the very appointment of the 2nd respondent is void the impugned order dated 20-7-2005, passed by him whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension and charges framed against him, is also a nullity. Learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner is a servant attached to a religious institution, the competent authority to place him under suspension, initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose punishment is either the trustee or the executive officer under Section 37 of the Act and it is only when such a power is not exercised, that the 1st respondent is empowered, under Section 38 of the Act, to direct the Trustee or the Executive Officerto take action, failing which alone the 1st respondent, after following the prescribed procedure, is empowered to impose penalty, that too by an order in writing, and as such the impugned order dated 20-7-2005, issued by the 2nd respondent, is without jurisdiction.