1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.06.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA W.P. (MD) No.5780 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 S. Sethuramabattar Petitioner vs. 1 E. Thangasamy Hereditary Trustee Arulmigu Kazhugachalamoorthy (Subiramaniaswamy) Thirukovil Kazhugumalai Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District 2 The Executive Officer Arulmigu Kazhugachalamoorthy (Subiramaniaswamy) Thirukovil Kazhugumalai Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order dated 22.04.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.116/08 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and also consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his service as an Archagar at Arulmighu Kazhugachalamoorthy (Subramaniasamy) Thirukovil, Kazhumalai, Kovilpatti Via, Tirunelveli District. For petitioner : Mr. S. Palanivelayutham For respondents : Mr. T.R. Janarthanam, Spl. Govt. Pleader ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the suspension order dated 22.04.2011 by which pending enquiry, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though a charge memo has been issued long back, without passing a final order, the impugned order of suspension has been passed; besides, the petitioner had functioned only for a period of 3 ½ months as Poojari of the concerned temple; consequently, the question of committing any irregularity does not arise; apart from this, in the impugned order, there is no whisper with regard to public interest aspect. Based on these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is functioning as a priest in a particular temple which is under the control of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department and based on certain allegations, he has been placed under suspension. In a public temple, when there is an allegation of commission and omission, certainly, the authorities have got power to resort to suspension, pending enquiry. Apart from this, though it is not stated in the impugned order with regard to the aspect of public interest, as far as public temples are concerned, certainly, public interest is always prevailing in every aspect of it. Hence, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner will not hold good. Besides, even a perusal of the allegation levelled as against the petitioner also reveals that the same is of serious nature. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is devoid of any merit. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 08.04.2011. In view of this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are directed to conduct enquiry and to pass final orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1 The Hereditary Trustee Arulmigu Kazhugachalamoorthy (Subiramaniaswamy) Thirukovil Kazhugumalai, Kovilpatti Tuticorin District 2 The Executive Officer Arulmigu Kazhugachalamoorthy (Subiramaniaswamy) Thirukovil Kazhugumalai, Kovilpatti Tuticorin District cad ssk/07.06.2011 /3c -2p/- W.P. (MD) No.5780 of 2011 01.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/