IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE 5th DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.32013 of 2011 Between: D.Keshava Reddy … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Endowments Department and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 32013 OF 2011 ORDER: - This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not paying subsistence allowance to the petitioner and in continuing the petitioner under suspension even after lapse of nearly ten months without passing any orders, though the petitioner submitted his explanation way back on 04.03.2011 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders in the petitioner’s case within a reasonable period. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 01.04.1989 in Sri Gandi Maisamma Temple, Gandipet, Rajendranagar Mandal. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued proceedings No.D2/25950/2009-6, dated 16.07.2009 by posting the petitioner as regular Manager of Sri Seetharama Chandra Swamy Temple, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal and also directed to discharge duties as Manager of nine other temples. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings in Rc.No.E3/1681/2011-01, dated 20.01.2011, repatriating the petitioner from the post of Manager to Clerk (Jr.Assistant) alleging that the petitioner was not regular to duties and not evinced any interest in the day to day administration and that he has misappropriated temple funds received towards shop rents, donations etc. and directed the petitioner to report before the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the 5th respondent issued the impugned Memo No.SGMT/GP/2011-1, dated 18.02.2011, placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 04.03.2011. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued letter, dated 25.07.2011 directing the petitioner to attend for enquiry on 26.07.2011 and he appeared before the 4th respondent. It is further submitted that from the date of suspension of the petitioner, he was not paid even subsistence allowance in spite of his repeated representations. Hence, the writ petition. 3. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.29467 of 2011 seeking for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.E3/1681/2011-01, dated 20.01.2011, of the 1st respondent in repatriating the petitioner from the post of Manager to Clerk (to his parental institutional) and consequential memo No.SGMT/GP/2011-1, dated 18.02.2011, of the 2nd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension on the allegation of misappropriation of funds etc., as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the impugned orders of the 1st and 2nd respondents with a further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as manager of Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Temple, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal as there is no misappropriation of funds at all as evident from the report, dated 14.05.2011. 4. This Court by order, dated 04.11.2011, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that since the suspension pending enquiry is not vitiated either by mala fides or by want of jurisdiction of the authority, the interference with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible. However, as long as the petitioner is kept under suspension, he shall be entitled to subsistence allowance as per rules. 5. The present writ petition is also filed complaining non- payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner. However, while making the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction sought for in the writ petition has already been granted on the earlier occasion by this court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner viz., W.P.No.29467 of 2011. He also submits that even in compliance of the orders passed by this court, the petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance. He further submits that in compliance of the suspension order the petitioner was asked to submit the explanation and the explanation is submitted. Though ten months have elapsed, no final orders have been passed. Therefore, the disciplinary authority may be directed to complete the enquiry within a reasonable time. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent submits that as the petitioner is involved in the case of misappropriation of funds, it takes sufficient time for completion of enquiry. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, completion of enquiry in any disciplinary matter depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case it appears that the petitioner is placed under suspension in connection with the alleged misappropriation of funds. In that view of the matter, it is for the authorities to take into consideration the stock of the situation and to complete the enquiry in accordance with law. Therefore, the disciplinary authority is directed to complete the enquiry in accordance with law and meanwhile if for any reason the petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance in compliance with the earlier order, the respondents are directed to comply with the same in accordance with law. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 05.12.2011 Note:- Issue C.C. by one week. {B/o} lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.32013 of 2011 05.12.2011 lmv