THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9037 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for Respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant in the 1st respondent temple. While so, on the allegation of misappropriation of funds, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No. A/3/2009, dated 09.09.2009 instructed the Executive Officer of the 1s t respondent Temple to take suitable disciplinary action against the petitioner. The 1st respondent, therefore, passed the impugned order, suspending him from the service from 23.02.2010. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the said order only on the ground that the same was issued as a measure of penalty without conducting any enquiry and as such, the same is illegal and arbitrary. From a perusal of the order impugned, it appears that during the course of inspection made into the affairs of the 1st respondent temple, it was found that huge amounts of the temple were misappropriated by its Chairman, Executive Officer and Junior Assistant, i.e. the petitioner herein. While sending the report, the Regional Joint Commissioner has issued instructions to take suitable disciplinary action against the petitioner for the alleged misappropriation of funds by placing him under suspension. Though the operative portion of the impugned order did not specifically mention that it was passed pending enquiry, a comprehensive reading of the same makes it clear that the said order was passed pending enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner. It also says that the petitioner is entitled to receive subsistence allowance as per the Rules. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed as a measure of penalty, but it is only an order of suspension pending enquiry. In view of the serious allegations made against the petitioner with regard to misappropriation of huge amounts of the 1st respondent temple, it is not a fit case to grant the relief as sought for, at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, keeping it open to the petitioner to attend the enquiry by filing his explanation, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ---------------------------- (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) 21st April 2010 ksld