K SIDDAIAH Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the service of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (T.T.D.) in the year, 1960 as a Shroff. He was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk in 1964 and as an Upper Division Clerk with effect from 10-4-1970 and further promoted to the post of Superintendent with effect from 3-4-1980. In the year 1986 when he was working as the Superintendent in Vykuntam Complex, a complaint was filed against him alleging that he collected a sum of Rs. 875/- without issuing the tickets. On the report of the Vigilance Guard Officer of T.T.D. he was placed under suspension pending enquiry and framing of charges. Later on, a charge memo was issued by the Executive Officer, T.T.D. to which he was asked to submit his explanation within seven days. He gave his explanation on 11-9-1986 and also refunded the amount of Rs. 350/- which was received by him. A provisional conclusion order dated 18-4-1987 was issued to the petitioner to which he offered his explanation on 29-4-1987. This provisional conclusion order was to remove him from service. However, the order of removal was passed by the Deputy Executive Officer, on 24-6-1987. Against the said removal order the petitioner filed W.P. No. 11391/87 contending inter alia that the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of employees of T.T.D. of the Cadre of Superintendent is the Board of Trustees and not the Executive Officer. It was also contended that as per G.O.Ms. No. 1351 dt. 2-8-78, under Rule 5 all powers vested in the Head of Department shall be exercised by the Board of Trustees, in respect of office holders and servants whose salary is Rs. 250/- and above. The petitioner was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1090/- on the date of the order of removal passed against him. A learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to pass an order on 14-10-1987 in W.P. No. 11391/87, allowing the Writ Petition on the ground that the Executive Officer has not passed the impugned order and the Deputy Executive Officer had no competency in law to pass the said order. The above judgment was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1539/87 giving option to the T.T.D. to take appropriate action to ensure that the order is passed by the competent authority.

(2.) Since the judgment in W.P. No. 11391/87 was not implemented the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 36 of 1988. After filing of the Contempt Case referred to above, the proceedings in Roc. No. DAI/59855/ 87 dated 23-1-1988 were passed placing the petitioner under suspension in exercise of powers under Rule 13(4) of C.C.A. Rules. The petitioner responded to such an order by filing another writ petition, W.P. No. 1322 of 1988, which was dismissed on 3-2-1988, The matter was carried in appeal in W.A. No. 358 of 1988 and the order was modified to the effect that the petitioner may be reinstated pending enquiry and his salary and emoluments may be paid. The petitioner was consequently reinstated to duty on 16-3-1988 and the Contempt Case was closed with an observation that there is no need to pass any further order in the same. Nevertheless, the enquiry initiated against the petitioner was pursued on several dates and finally the impugned order dated 26-12-1988 in Roc. No. DAI/59855/87 was passed removing the petitioner from service. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of removal dated 26-12-88.

(3.) The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of removal in question has been passed by the Executive Officer, who has jurisdiction to initiate or take any disciplinary action against an employee of the T.T.D. who is drawing more than Rs. 250/- basic pay. In other words, what is contended is that the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings and take action against the petitioner is vested with the Board of Trustees and has not been delegated to the Executive Officer empowering him to pass such order of removal. It is further contended that under the rules framed in G.O.Ms. No. 1351 dated 2-8-78, under the provisions of Act 17 of 1966, the Board of Trustees is empowered to take action against the employees whose salaries are Rs. 250/- and above per month and in all other cases the Executive Officer of the T.T.D. is empowered to take disciplinary action.