IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27117 of 2008 Between: N.Markonda Reddy S/o.Venkat Reddy Office of Sri Mahant Varu Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati, Rep. by its Mahant Varu. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to proceedings in Rc.No.A3/210/2002, dt. 22.11.2008 and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, violative of the provisions of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 and the rules framed thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently suspend the said order or suspension and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.DORAI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. V.VENUGOPALA RAO, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati-2nd respondent on a salary of Rs.50/- per month with usual allowances in the year 1974. His services came to be regularized alongwith one R.Krishnaiah in the pay scale of Rs.60-2-80- 4-100 with effect from 04.05.1978. 2nd respondent issued office order dated 15.11.2008 directing the petitioner to render services at Sri Venugopalaswami Temple belonging to the Mutt at Tirumala. Whileso, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.A3/210/2002, dated 22.11.2008 placing the petitioner under suspension pending the disciplinary enquiry initiated against him. The order of suspension is under challenge in this writ petition. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras.6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which read as hereunder: “6. I submit that there is no complaint of any kind against me in respect of duties as an employee of the Mutt. The main ground urged in the impugned order is that my son Mr.N.Rajasekhara Reddy secured lease of a vacant site admeasuring 15 ft x 20 ft for the purpose of locating a shop to vend fancy items, cool drinks, tea, tiffin etc. at Tirumala Hills at the back side of Kalyana Katta. It is further stated in the impugned order that the fact that he is my son is suppressed and that the lease culminated in legal proceedings for eviction and also civil suit OS 1461 of 2001 was filed by him against the Mutt and Girumala Gram Panchayat and that Mutt had to file an eviction petition OA 18/2002. The entire impugned order deals with the litigation between my son and Mutt authorities in respect of a lease transaction from 2001 onwards and still sub judice. The only averment in the impugned order is that I managed to obtain lease from Mutt authorities suppressing my relationship with him. I did not apply for any lease and the lease was obtained by my son independently to eke out his livelihood. It is on this solitary allegation against me the impugned order came to be passed giving reason that in view of the litigation there is conflict between TTD and Mutt and the prestige of the Mutt is affected. Apart from that it is mentioned that therefore my activities and working conditions are unsatisfactory and also quite against usage and custom of the Mutt. This reason is totally unsustainable by any known cannons of law. The complaint is not against my service or duties. The suspension order was passed on the ground that there is litigation between TTD and Mutt and between Mutt and my son. 7. I submit that the 2nd respondent did not issue any show cause notice and never called for any explanation whether the imagined involvement of mine in the transactions referred in the impugned order is there or not. Had my explanation called for, I would have explained that I have nothing to do with the transaction and in fact that lease was granted in favour of my son in the year 2001 by the then Custodian & Dy. Commissioner incharge of the 2nd respondent under the proceedings No.Rc.No.B3/1077/2001, dt.20.9.01. The said lease was granted as per the procedure and law. The lease period of 3 years was not extended and application for extension was pending. Without considering that there was a threat of dispossession as a result of which my son along with another similar lessee filed OS 1461/2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Jr. Civil Judge, Tirupathi for permanent injunction and the same was granted with a direction to the Mutt to seek eviction under due process of law. Instead of following the legitimate legal procedure the 2nd respondent with a view to coerce and compel my son to vacate the premises has resorted to harass me being the father by issuing the impugned order of suspension.” 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati, received notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent and filed counter- affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was not regular in attending the duties and frequently absenting the duties without permission from the Mutt authorities. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner obtained lease of the Mutt properties in the name of his son, daughter and his wife and he has been creating hurdles in vacating the persons in occupation of the Mutt properties. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is instrumental in filing the suits by his son against the Mutt. Para.7 of the counter-affidavit details the suits filed by the son of the petitioner and the litigation between the Mutt and the son of the petitioner. In a way, the counter- affidavit of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner is acting detrimental to the interests of the Mutt. 3. The petitioner filed reply affidavit contending that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the leases granted in favour of his son, daughter- in-law and wife. He specifically pleaded in the reply affidavit that he is nothing to do with the activities of A.Dhananjaya Reddy, who is his son- in-law. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that for the litigation initiated by the son of the petitioner by filing suits against the Mutt, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for the said litigation. He further submits that the petitioner has not been charge- sheeted so far though nearly three months have been elapsed from the date of suspension. He would also contend that even if the litigation pending between the son of the petitioner and the Mutt is true, it cannot be a ground for suspending the petitioner from service. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner came to be kept under suspension because he has been instrumental in getting the suits filed by his son and his activities are detrimental to the interests of the Mutt. He further submits that as per the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987, the Managing Trustee is empowered to place the employee of the Mutt under suspension pending enquiry. He refers Rule 6 of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987, which reads as hereunder: 6. (1) An office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment may be ordered to be under suspension from office or service by the trustee, the Executive Officer, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Regional Joint Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges where such suspension is necessary in public interest. Provided that where the investigation has not been completed and the action proposed to be taken in regard to him has not been completed within a period of six months from the date of suspension, the fact shall be reported to the Government the Commissioner, Regional Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, for orders. The period of suspension shall not, however, exceed six months without the previous orders of the Government in case of suspension ordered by the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner and of the Commissioner in other cases: Provided further that during the period of suspension he shall be paid, subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules in Chapter- VIII of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Government. (2) An Office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the authority competent to impose the suspension and shall remain under suspension until further orders by such authority. (3) Any order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by the authority by which such order was made or deemed to have been made, or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.” 8. The above referred Rule empowers the Managing Trustee to place the servants attached to the Mutt under suspension pending enquiry. In the suspension order, it is specifically alleged that the petitioner is instrumental in getting the suits filed against the Mutt. The relevant portion of the suspension order reads as hereunder: “…..The Mutt filed O.A. seeking eviction of son of Sri N.Markonda Reddy. Even after expiry of the alleged lease N.Markonda Reddy is managing to continue in possession of the property and involving in activities affecting the spiritual atmosphere in the Main Mutt premises and thereby causing damage to the prestige of the Mutt at Tirumala. Though the lease is in the name of son of N.Markonda Reddy. The actual beneficiary and person involving the activities affecting the sanctity of the Mutt at Tirumala. In view of litigation by N.Markonda Reddy there is conflict between TTD and the Mutt which is undesirable. Sri N.Markonda Reddy is responsible for all the activities causing damage to Mutt property and loss to the prestige of Mutt. Therefore, his activities and working conditions are unsatisfactory and also quite against the usage and custom of the Mutt.” 9. The question whether the petitioner is instrumental in getting the suits filed against the Mutt by his son is required to be examined during the enquiry. Under Rule 6 the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987, the maximum period of suspension is six months without previous orders of the Government. Since six months period is not yet over, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to proceed with the departmental enquiry. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the suspension order within the stipulated period as proved under Rule 6 of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987, failing which the suspension order impugned in the writ petition stands revoked. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:04th March, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}