THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.4954 of 2001 (Dated : 16-12-2010) Between: B.Hari Babu S/o Laxmi Narsaiah …Petitioner A n d Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.4954 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by B.Hari Babu seeking writ of certiorari to call for the records from the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Nellore relating to passing of order Rc.No.B1/780/2001-2 dated 7.3.2001 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on consolidated salary of Rs.200/- per month by the Executive Officer of Sri Naidupeta Group Temples, Naidupeta, Nellore District (hereinafter referred to as `temple’) in proceedings Rc.No.Nil/94, dated 28.8.1994. There are two posts in the temple. One A.Ramakrishna Murali resigned in the year 1997 and thereby, vacancy arose in the post of Clerk. The petitioner was absorbed in the said vacancy, vide proceedings of the Executive Officer dated 2.9.1997 as a full time Clerk on a monthly salary of Rs.1,000/-. As per Section 35 of Act 30 of 1987, Trustee is the appointing authority. On the recommendation of the Executive Officer, the respondent enhanced the salary of the petitioner from Rs.1600/- to Rs.1800/- per month. The respondent issued notice dated 12.3.2001 directing the petitioner to appear before him in connection with the enquiry with all connected records and certificates relating to his educational qualifications. The notice, according to the petitioner, came to be served on him after the scheduled date of enquiry. The Commissioner of Endowments issued a circular No.J2/12961/91 dated 7.4.2000 directing the Executive Officer to regularize the services of the employees, who have completed five years of service and possess other requisite qualifications. According to the petitioner, he has been absorbed in the post of Clerk on permanent basis and therefore, the respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has no jurisdiction to call upon him to appear along with the connected records and original educational qualification certificates for regularization into service as a Clerk in the temple. 3. The respondent filed counter. One M.Kesava Rao has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that a news item has been published in Andhra Bhoomi daily newspaper dated 24.01.2001 stating that an officer of Endowment Department at Naidupet has got appointed his two sons and his brother’s son as Clerks in the temple irregularly and illegally during the ban period imposed by the Government. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-II, Endowments Department, Tirupathi issued instructions in Rc.No.16/2001, RJC, dated 27.2.2001 to enquire into the contents of the above said paper clipping and to take action and report the action taken in the matter. Accordingly, the respondent issued notice in Rc.No.B1/780/2001, dated 7.3.2001 to the Executive Officer of the temple and to the petitioner-Sri B.Hari Babu to attend the enquiry on 12.3.2001. The enquiry notice could not be served on the petitioner as he applied leave from 9.3.2001 to 12.3.2001. The Executive Officer of the temple sought an adjournment to some other date. Accordingly, the enquiry stood posted to 14.3.2001 on which date neither the Executive Officer of the temple nor the petitioner attended. Hence, the enquiry stood posted to 20.3.2001. Even then, neither the Executive Officer nor the petitioner attended the enquiry. The respondent adjourned the enquiry to 29.3.2001. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ petition and obtained interim suspension of the proceedings dated 21.3.2001. The enquiry is to know the correctness of the appointment of the petitioner with reference to the relevant records. 4. For better understanding of the case of the respondent, I deem it appropriate to refer para (6) of the counter affidavit, which reads as hereunder:- “In reply to paras 8 & 9 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the alleged irregular and illegal appointment has been made by the Executive Officer of Naidupet group of temples who is none other than his uncle (Father’s brother). As the temple is under the administrative control of the Respondent and as per the instructions of the RJC, Multi Zone-II, Endowments Department, Tirupathi in Rc.No.16/2001, RJC dated 27-2-2001, the respondent has proposed to conduct an enquiry and that there is nothing wrong to conduct an enquiry on an allegation received against the petitioner herein about his irregular and illegal appointment by the respondent, who is the administrative authority. It is not known as to why the petitioner has been apprehending to face the enquiry, if his appointment is genuine and in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30/87. Thus, it is amply clear that the petitioner has been willfully and intentionally evading to face the enquiry for the reasons best known to him. It is necessary to conduct an enquiry to know the correctness of the appointment of the petitioner”. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments has no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the employees of temple and it is only the Board of Trustees which is competent to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in N.Ravindra Murthy v. Shri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Bonthupally, Medak District[1]. 7. The issued involved in the above-referred case is: Whether the Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Department of Endowments (Departmental Officers) is competent to suspend a temple employee discharging functions of executive officer? 8. The Full Bench answered the above-referred question as hereunder:- (1) Office holders and servants of any Charitable religious institution or endowment authorized to perform functions and discharge duties of Eos of an institution cannot be treated or considered as EOs appointed under Section 29(2) and (3) of the Act read with Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Subordinate Service (Non-Gazetted) Rules, 2002; (2) Officers and holders authorized to perform functions and discharge the duties of EOs cannot be treated as Government servants under Section 29(6) of the Act, and therefore, they cannot be paid salary, allowances, pension or other remuneration out of Consolidated Fund of State; (3) Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1991 have no application to EOs appointed under Section 29(2) of the Act. As a corollary, theses Rules are not applicable to office holders and servants of temple who are authorized to discharge functions of EOs, (4) The Commissioner and/or Assistant Commissioner of Endowments are not competent to suspend a temple employee performing functions and discharging duties of EO as authorized by Commissioner under Section 29(5)(d) of the Act; and (5) It is competent to the trustee/Board of Trustees or EO, as the case may be, to take disciplinary action against temple employees and temple employees discharging functions of EO in accordance with Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987. If the trustee or Board of Trustees or EO fails to take such action including the action to suspend a temple employee pending enquiry, then alone the Commissioner and/or department officers can take action.” 9. The cause of action for filing the writ petition is issue of notice by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry along with connected records and original educational qualification certificates. For better appreciation, the text of the notice issued to the petitioner need to be noted and it reads as hereunder:- “An enquiry into the appointment of Sri B.Hari Babu, Clerk of Naidupet group of temples will be held by the undersigned on 12-3-2001 at 3-00 PM in the office of the Asst. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore. Hence Sri B.Sankara Reddy, Executive Officer of Naidupet group temples and Sri B.Hari Babu, Clerk of Naidupet group temples are hereby directed to attend to the above enquiry on the aforesaid date, time and place without fail along with all the connected records and original Educational Qualification certificates failing which suitable orders as deemed fit will be passed on the material available on record”. 10. The text of the above notice indicates that the writ petitioner herein and B.Sankara Reddy are required to attend before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments. The notice cannot be treated as a final order nor it can be construed as a show-cause notice before imposing punishment. The petitioner is bound to answer to the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner and submit his original educational qualification certificates for verification. He can also submit any written representation, if he is so advised. In the event of final orders are passed, he is at liberty to question the competency of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the writ petition warranting interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly, hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.16-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.4954 of 2001 (Dated : 16-12-2010) [1] Writ Appeal No.1789 of 2004 and batch