TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM Vs. Y D SANTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Tinimala Tirupathi Devasthanams, represented by Executive Officer, is the appellant. The respondent-writ-petitioner was an employee of the TTD. He joined Service as Lower Division Clerk on 11-6-1966 and subsequently promoted to the posts of Upper Division Clerk and Superintendent. He was transferred from the Engineering (EE.II) Department to the office of the Stapathy in the year 1976. While he was working in the said office, two charges were framed against him, and he was also placed under suspension on 4-1-1980, pending an enquiry. The first charge pertains to misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 512-80 from out of the advance amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- sanctioned to meet the expenditure during Rajahmundry Pushkarams. The second charge is that, he failed to attend to the settlement of II-B advance to the tune of Rs. 1,48,618-50 since 1977, in spite of repeated instructions from the Assistant Engineer (Renovation), T.T.D. It can thus be seen that the first charge refers to misappropriation of a small amount of Rs. 512-80 and the second-charge pertains to dereliction of duty. The writ- petitioner submitted an explanation on 6-2-1980. An enquiry was conducted and a show- cause notice was issued to him as to why he should not be dismissed from service. He submitted his detailed explanation on 13-10-1980 denying the charges levelled against him. Again, proceedings dated 18-11-1981 were issued calling upon him to submit further explanation, and accordingly he submitted his further explanation. However, the Executive Officer, TTD., by his order dated 31-10-1987, which is impugned in the writ-petition, directed the removal of the writ-petitioner from service. Questioning the same, the writ petition was filed. A preliminary point as to jurisdiction was raised in the writ petition on behalf of the writ-petitioner viz., that the Executive Officer had no jurisdiction to inflict the punishment and that, it is only the Board of the Devasthanams, under the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Act 1979, that has the power to inflict such punishment. The learned Single Judge accepted this contention. However, the learned Single Judge referred to the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and the Rules made thereunder viz., the Tiramala Tirupati Devasthanams' Office Holders (Condition of Service) Rules, and ultimately held that the authority competent to pass the order is only the Board of Trustees, and not the Executive Officer, and in that view of the matter, allowed the writ petition. Questioning the same, the present Writ-Appeal is filed.

(2.) Sri A. Gopalarao, the learned Counsel for the TTD-Appellant, very much relied upon the earlier judgment of Seetharam Reddy, J., in Writ Petition No. 2207 of 1981 dated 30th July 1981, and submitted that the delegation of powers made earlier under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act), empowering the Executive Officer to appoint and inflict punishments upto and inclusive of Assistant Engineers and other equivalent Cadres, survives and, therefore, no fresh delegation is necessary under the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Act), ami that these provisions which, if read cumulatively, empower the Executive Officer to inflict such a punishment, have not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. We find considerable force in this submission. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings against the writ-petitioner commenced during the month of January 1980 and by then the 1979 Act had come into force. What we have to see is, whether there was delegation of such powers to the Executive Officer at the relevant time?

(3.) Section 5 of the 1979 Act empowers the Board to exercise such other powers apart from the functions entrusted to it, as may be prescribed in regard to matters of policy and general superintendence and review in relation to the administration of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams etc. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge (Seetharam Reddy , J.) shows that he had traced the delegation of powers to the Executive Officer from the time when the 1966 Act, came into force. Under Section 86 (3) of the 1966 Act, the Board of Trustees was the appointing authority and, therefore, the Board alone was competent to inflict punishment. Under Section 88(1) ther of, the Executive Officer was competent to appoint all office-holders and servants of the TTD., whose salary was below Rs.250/- . Then by Act No. 20 of 1976, Section 86 of the 1966 Act was amended and sub-section (5) was introduced which provided that the Board oi" Trustees may, in consultation with the Commissioner and subject to such conditions and restrictions, as the Commissioner may, by general or special order, lay down, delegate to the Executive Officer such of the powers conferred on it by or under the Act, as it may consider necessary. The Board by its proceedings,Roc.No. B1/40354/75 dated 28-11-1978 delegated certain powers vested in them to the Executive Officer, and one of the delegated powers was item No. 19 viz., power of appointment under sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the 1966 Act. The Board of Trustees, by their resolution, approved to delegate all the 23 items suggested, including power to appoint and inflict punishments as also the other powers vested in the Board. While so, on 18-5-1979, an Ordinance was issued, which was replaced by the 1979 Act. Under the 1979 Act, apart from the Board, there is a provision for constitution of a Committee under Section 6, consisting of the Chairman, the Commissioner, the Executive Officer and two other members of the Board. Section 7 provides for the powers and functions of the said Committee. Section 7(v) lays down that the Committee shall exercise the general superintendence and control over the administration of the TTD, in conformity with the policy laid down by the Board. Section 7(vii) further lays down that the Committee may, subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may lay down, delegate to the Executive Officer such of the powers conferred on it by or under the Act, as it may consider necessary.