THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No :10089 of 2001 DATED:25-11-2010 Between: A.Y.N.Sastry & another. ..... PETITIONERS And The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari declaring the action of the respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, in issuing the impugned order, dated 11-05-2001, as without jurisdiction and is therefore illegal; and also declare the action of the respondent in placing the petitioners under suspension under the provisions of the A.P.Civil Services (CCA) Rules, as wholly illegal on the ground that the petitioners are not governed by the said Rules. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioners are servants of the temple-Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Ammavari Devasthanam, Vizianagaram. 1st petitioner is working as Junior Assistant and 2nd petitioner is working as a Sweeper in the temple. By the impugned order, dated 11-05-2009, respondent has placed the petitioners under suspension. Petitioners assailed the said order on the ground that they being the servants of the temple, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, has no jurisdiction to cause any further enquiry and the petitioners are not governed by the CCA Rules. 4. Section 37 of the Endowments Act states that all office holders and servants attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment, shall be under the control of the trustee and the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure and for reasons to be recorded in writing, impose necessary punishment for misconduct etc. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1789 of 2004 and batch, wherein the questions referred in the Full Bench are as follows: (1) Officer 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, these 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 trustee 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 trustee 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. 6. As seen from the above decision of the Full Bench, office holders and servants of the charitable institution endowment cannot be treated as Government servants and the A.P.C.C.A. rules have no application to them and the Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner is not competent to suspend the temple employees and it is only the trustee/Board of trustee or Executive Officer, as the case may be, who is competent to take disciplinary action against the temple employees, and the temple employees discharging functions of Executive Officer in accordance with Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987. 7. In view of the above decision of the Full Bench of this Court and the principles laid down therein, the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is not legal and sustainable, being without jurisdiction. 8. In the circumstances, impugned order, dated 11-05-2001, passed by the respondent- Commissioner of Endowments is held liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 9. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 25th November, 2010. Tsy