LAWS(APH)-2006-2-19

OBHINNI SRINIVASA RAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT

Decided On February 14, 2006
OBHINNI SRINIVASA RAO Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner, and they relate to his service in Sri Chandrasekhara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Gandapalli, East Godavari District, (for short "the Devasthanam"). The parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P.No. 1845 of 2006.

(2.) The petitioner was engaged as NMR employee, by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, the 5th respondent, on 1 -3-1995, on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/-. On 7.9.1997, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, the 4th respondent, addressed a letter to the 5th respondent, stating that the appointment of the petitioner and payment of salary to him was without sanction from the competent authority. It was also indicated that the Executive Officer is personally liable for the amount paid to the petitioner herein, towards salary. On receipt of this, the 5th respondent issued proceedings dated 12-9-1997, terminating the service of the petitioner, and requiring him to repay the amount paid to him towards salary. Petitioner filed W.P.No.23673 of 1997, challenging the said proceedings. The writ petition was admitted on 19-9-1997, and an orderof interim stay was granted, only as regards recovery of the amount from the petitioner.

(3.) Though this Court did not stay the termination of the service of the petitioner, the Executive Officer continued him in service. The petitioner states that his services were regularized by the 5th respondent, through proceedings dated 22-7-2000. The Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone-l, Kakinada, the 3rd respondent, addressed letter dated 8-12-2005, to the 4th respondent, stating that there are certain allegations against the petitioner, and that he was being continued in the service, on the basis of the orders of stay. The 4th respondent was required to take necessary action. The 4th respondent, in turn, addressed letter dated 30-12-2005, requiring the 5th respondent to take necessary action against the petitioner. The 5th respondent passed orders dated 25-1-2006, removing the petitioner from service, in view of the orders passed by the respondents3and4.W.P.No.1845 of 2006 is filed, against it.