THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.1604, 2416 and 8097 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These three writ petitions are filed by the same individual, seeking different reliefs. The respondents are almost common. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant in Sri Chandrasekhara Swamy Temple, Ch.Agraharam, Ganapavaram Mandal. In the year 2004, he was promoted as Senior Assistant. Vide orders, dated 08.10.2007, he was posted on deputation as Senior Assistant in Sri Daneswari Ammavari Temple, Duvva Village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District, 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, he acquired promotion to the post of Superintendent. The petitioner was repatriated to his parent institution vide orders, dated 21.01.2010 passed by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension, through order, dated 22.03.2010 passed by the 1st respondent himself. W.P.No.8097 of 2010 is filed challenging the order of suspension. The order of repatriation is challenged in W.P.No.2416 of 2010. Complaining that the respondents are not paying the salary for fairly long period, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1604 of 2010. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Manager of the Temple has no authority or jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension. As regards transfer, it is urged that the petitioner has earned promotion to the post of Superintendent and the parent institution has no such post. Certain other grounds are also urged. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that an employee has no legal right to continue on deputation forever and that the concerned authorities have the discretion whether or not, to continue the deputation. An attempt is made to justify the order of suspension, on the ground that the allegations are serious in nature. It is also stated that whatever amount is due to be paid to the petitioner was released and there are no subsisting arrears. First, it needs to be seen as to whether the order repatriating the petitioner to his parent institution suffers from any legal or factual infirmity. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sent on deputation in 2007 to the 1st respondent-temple. There were serious allegations against the petitioner and two junior assistants, who too were on deputation to that Temple. When a borrowing department or institution can repatriate the employees, who came on deputation without furnishing any reasons, the right of the 1st respondent to repatriate the petitioner, who is facing certain allegations, cannot be denied. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the 1st respondent, repatriating the petitioner to his parent institution. The order of suspension no doubt points out serious allegations of corruption, mal-administration etc., on the part of the petitioner. However, the order was passed by the Manager of the Temple, that too after the petitioner was repatriated to his parent institution. The order suffers from two infirmities viz., that it was passed by an authority, who is not vested with the power, and that it is passed by the borrowing institution after the employee is repatriated to the parent institution. The first aspect of the matter is fairly well settled in Kondapaka Lakshmi Narsimha Charyulu vs. J.Sudhakar[1]. This Court took the view that the Manager or Executive Officer of a Temple does not have the jurisdiction to pass order of suspension against an employee. This was followed in W.P.No.16000 of 2008. As to the second aspect, once an employee on deputation is repatriated, the borrowing institution ceases to have any control upon him. If any misdeeds or acts of misconduct are noticed, they have to be brought to the notice of the original employer of such employee. For the foregoing reasons, the order of suspension deserves to be set aside. That however must not straight away result in reinstatement of the petitioner. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner, he needs to be continued under suspension till the competent authority takes appropriate decision. Coming to the grievance of the petitioner about non-payment of salary, the matter needs to be addressed by the concerned authorities, after the disciplinary proceedings assume finality. Hence, W.P.No.2416 of 2010 is dismissed. W.P.No.8097 of 2010 is allowed setting aside the order, dated 22.03.2010 passed by the 1st respondent. However, the appointing authority of the petitioner shall be entitled to initiate or continue the disciplinary proceedings and shall be under obligation to conclude the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the petitioner shall remain under suspension. W.P.No.1604 of 2010 is disposed of directing that the respondents shall consider the grievance of the petitioner as to non-payment of salary, depending on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 20.09.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.1604, 2416 and 8097 of 2010 Date: 20.09.2010 JSU [1] 2007(3) ALT 556