IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No : 27252 of 2008 Between: Chalasani Indira Ramana Rao, S/o. Sri chalasani Venkata Satyanarayana Rao, Sri Venkateswra Swami Vari Devasthanam, Patimeeda, Gudivada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, yderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 Vedantam Venugopalacharyulu, Sri Venkateswara Swami Vari Devasthanam, Patimeeda, Gudivada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh to consider and dispose of as per law the report and recommendation made to him by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, kakinada, made in Rc.No.B2/16620/08 dated 02.12.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.T.M.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Endowments to consider and dispose of the report and recommendation made in Rc.No.B2/16620/08, dated 2.12.2008 by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner asserts that he is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Sri Venkateswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, Gudivada which is under the administrative control of the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner. The 3rd respondent is working as Archaka in the temple. On the complaints made against the 3rd respondent that he committed various omissions and commissions, the petitioner, vide his Proceedings dated 5.5.2008, initiated disciplinary action against him by framing as many as eleven charges. Then, the 3rd respondent offered explanation dated 15.5.2008. As the Trust Board found the explanation unsatisfactory, the petitioner vide proceedings dated 2.8.2008 placed the 3rd respondent under suspension and gave a representation to the Minister for Endowments narrating the allegations leveled against the 3rd respondent and the Minister for Endowments, made an endorsement to the 2nd respondent on 30.9.2008 to enquire into the mater and shift the 3rd respondent to Peddamaddali Temple and send a report. Based on the endorsement, the 2nd respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 4.11.2008 and consequently the 1st respondent through Memo dated 28.11.2008 directed the Manager of the Temple to take disciplinary action against the 3rd respondent. On 29.11.2008, the Trust Board of the Temple unanimously resolved to remove the 3rd respondent from service as Archaka. Based on the resolution, the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 2.12.2008 recommended to the 1st respondent to remove the 3rd respondent from service as Archaka of the temple but allow him to continue as Archaka of Sri Uddana Venugopala Swamy Temple at Peddamaddali. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though the 2nd respondent recommended removal of the 3rd respondent from service as Archaka of the Temple, the 1st respondent has neither considered the report nor initiated any disciplinary action against the 3rd respondent, who, though under suspension, is entering the temple and doing archakatvam. The learned Government pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has reported that the matter is under consideration of the 1st respondent and as such, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to take necessary action on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Endowment, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent and take appropriate action in accordance therewith after issuing notice to the 3rd respondent and affording opportunity of put forth his version, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J 17th December, 2008 bcj