IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19602 of 2008 Between: G.Simmaiah S/o. Late Asirayya O/o. Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Temple, Arasavalli, Srikakulam District, R/o. Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Devadaya Dharmadaya Shaka, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Govt., of A.P., Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer, Sri Suryanarayan Swamy Temple, Arasavalli, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. K.S.R.MURTHY FOR MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for Respondent No.3:MR. V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By order, dated 14.08.2007, the petitioner, who was Attender in Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Temple, Arsavalli, Srikakulam District, was removed from service on the charge of committing theft of 25 gold eyes and 50 silver eyes of the Lord. At the hearing, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s removal is based on the judgment of the Criminal Court by which the petitioner was convicted, but released under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Karam Singh v. State of Punjab[1], if a person is released under the Act, he deserves to be removed instead of being dismissed. As the petitioner was not dismissed and only removed, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, more so, as the conviction of the petitioner was affirmed in Criminal Appeal, which judgment has become final. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive arrears of subsistence allowance. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.3 and on receipt of such representation, respondent No.3 shall take appropriate action and pass an order in that regard within a period of four (4) weeks. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.25574 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th APRIL, 2009. kvni [1] AIR 1996 SC 3159