IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 19144 of 2011 Between: P.C.Ram Prasad. …PETITIONER AND The Executive Officer, Sri Nekkanti Anjaneyaswamy Temple and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 19144 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in passing the impugned suspension order No.B/450/2011, dated 01.07.2011, victimizing the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to attend the regular duties in the Temple. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 21.02.1990 at Sree Narasimhaswamy Devasthanam, Urukonda, Kowtalam Mandal, Kurnool District and he worked in the said post for fourteen years without any remark. On 08.07.2001, the petitioner was transferred to Mahanandeeswara Devasthanam at Mahanandi, Kurnool District, where he worked for about six months. On 22.11.2004, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant and transferred to Sri Nettekkanti Anjaneyaswamy Devasthanam, Kasapuram, Ananthapur District. On 08.10.2010 the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent. The petitioner was living in Room No.33, Lakshmana Sadanam, near to the temple. On 29.06.2011 the petitioner’s cousin sister, Smt. B.Rama Lakshmamma, visited the temple and after Darshanam, she met the petitioner. Both the petitioner and his cousin discussed about the family related issues and she left the place at around 11:30 PM. On 29.06.2011, on instructions of Sri B.Manohar, the Security guards conducted search in the petitioner’s room and observed that a lady coming out of petitioner’s room. On 30.06.2011 respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. As per the notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.1 on 30.06.2011 and gave written explanation on 01.07.2011 stating that the lady who visited his room was no other than his paternal cousin. Respondent No.1 also called the petitioner’s sister for enquiry and she appeared and explained the same as stated by the petitioner. But, respondent No.1 issued charge memo, asking explanation of the petitioner by keeping him under suspension for the reasons best known to him. Respondent No.1 without applying mind and without verifying the service of the petitioner, issued suspension order without conducting proper enquiry as per prudent laws. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and stating that the petitioner is working in respondent No.1 temple as Superintendent and the petitioner is living in Room No.33, Lakshmana Sadanam; that on 29.06.2011, at 11:30 PM., one trust member and two security guards went for search and found one lady coming out of petitioner’s room and informed the same to Respondent No.1; that thereafter, respondent No.1 enquired and recorded the statements of two security guards and the Trustee member, the petitioner herein and his cousin sister; that the statements given by the petitioner and his cousin sister are contradicting in some aspects and moreover the said incident has happened in Laxmana Sandanam, which is near to the temple; that the print media has focused on the issue and published it in the news papers on 01.07.2011 and also in T.V.Channels, by which the reputation of the institution is damaged very badly, and hence, they pray to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the cousin sister of the petitioner visited the room to pay back the amount borrowed, the authorities illegally suspended the petitioner without there being any misconduct and hence, he prays to set aside the suspension order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that only on suspicion, the petitioner was placed under suspension and hence, there are no grounds to set aside the suspension order. 6. No doubt, the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to place the petitioner under suspension when there is a serious misconduct on his part. But, at the same time, there must be a prima facie allegation of misconduct. The allegation is that on 29.06.2011 at about 11:30 PM., one lady was coming out from the room, where the petitioner was staying. The petitioner has submitted his explanation stating that his cousin sister came to his room to discuss about their family affairs and also handed over some money and went away. The lady who went to the room of the petitioner was also examined and her statement was recorded. She has categorically stated that the petitioner is no other than her cousin brother. For these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner or that the room, wherein the petitioner is residing was being used for immoral or illegal purpose. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 01.07.2011. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J JULY 12, 2011 YVL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 19144 of 2011 12.07.2011 YVL