GANGADARAYYA N B Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRISAILAM DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition, challenges an order of transfer vide proceedings No. 27/99 dated 08-10-1999 passed by the Executive Officer, Srisaila Devasthanam and also challenges the proceedings - Rc.No.A-1/302/99 dated 30-10-1999 passed by the same authority placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against him. The petitioner seeks further declaration that persons belonging to Veera Shaiva Jangam Maheswara alone are entitled to be appointed as Archaka in Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy temple at Srisailam.

(2.) Before adverting to the question as to the validity of the said order, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Archaka by the first respondent on 07-08-1969 in Srisailam Devasthanam and subsequently promoted as Additional Head Archaka. He belongs to Veera Shaiva Jangam Maheswara community/sect. He is mainly aggrieved by the order dated 30-10-1999 of the first respondent herein placing him under suspension pending inquiry into the grave charges. The Executive Officer, who is holding the post of Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, and presently discharging the functions of the Executive Officer, Srisailam Devasthanam, has been impleaded by name, as certain serious allegations are levelled against him. The impugned order of suspension is challenged mainly on three grounds-

(3.) The impugned order dated 30-10-1999 is self explanatory. It appears that certain charges have been framed against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 21-3-1999, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28-3-1999. The record also would disclose that as many as five charges have been framed against the petitioner under another proceedings dated 21-3-1999 to which the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 29-3-1999. It is stated that as many as twenty five additional charges have also been framed against the petitioner through Charge Memo dated 20-10-1999; but, the petitioner has not yet received the same. It may not be appropriate to refer in detail to the Memorandum of charges and allegations levelled against the petitioner; nor would it be necessary to have a detailed look at the replies submitted by the petitioner to those charges. In view of the gravity of the charges and several irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, in the interest of the temple, as well as in public interest, the Executive Officer, prima facie, came to the conclusion to place the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry into those charges framed against the petitioner. In the impugned order, it is observed that the petitioner being a responsible Additional Head Archaka was evading to receive the official communications and failed to avail number of opportunities given to him, on several occasions, to mend his ways. It is also stated that the petitioner refused to join in the duty at Sikhareshwara Swamy Temple, Srisailam, after his transfer by order dt. 08-10-1999 causing inconvenience to the Devasthanam. It is under those circumstances, the Executive Officer placed the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry. Jurisdiction: