THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18763 OF 2009 Date: 14.10.2009 Between: Seerla Dhanam Jayudu, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Andhra), rep., by its President, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18763 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is working in the office of the 1st respondent in the category of Secretary. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the 1st respondent – Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Andhra) - placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the alleged misappropriation of Rs.73,00,000/- as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The impugned order is challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is not competent to pass the said order. It is contended that since he is an employee of the 2nd respondent – Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Madras) - as per Rule 24 (b) of the Employees’ Service Rules, the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated and punishment, if any, can be imposed only by the 2nd respondent. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that Rule 24 of the Employees’ Service Rules of the 2nd respondent has no application to the petitioner and he is governed by the Service Rules of Employees of the 1st respondent - Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Andhra) 1998 and therefore the impugned order has been rightly passed in terms of Rule 2 read with Rule 26 of the said Rules. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was established in the year 1918, having its registered office at Madras and has thousands of centres throughout South India. Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act, 1964 (for short, ‘Act 14 of 1964’) was enacted declaring the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (for short, ‘Sabha’) is an institution of National importance. As per Section 4 of Act 14 of 1964 notwithstanding anything contained in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in any other law for the time being in force the Sabha may hold such examinations and grant such degrees, diplomas and certificates for proficiency in Hindi or in the teaching of Hindi as may be determined by the Sabha from time to time. However, as per Section 6 of the Act 14 of 1964 the Central Government is empowered to review the work done by the Sabha. It is not in dispute that the Executive Committee of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras (the 2nd respondent herein) issued Employees’ Service Rules which have come into force w.e.f. 1.7.1967 and as per Rule 24 of the said Employees’ Service Rules the General Secretary of the 2nd respondent is competent to hold an enquiry and impose penalties against the Departmental & Provincial Secretaries with the previous approval of the Chairman and the Executive Council in writing. It is also clear from the material placed before this Court that several Provincial Sabhas have been constituted in South India and the 1st respondent - Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Andhra) - is one of such provincial sabhas, having its head office at Hyderabad. The material on record also shows that the 1st respondent Sabha has been constituted and registered as a Provincial Sabha and it has its own service rules called Employees’ Services Rules, 1998. According to the said Rules, the President of the 1st respondent Sabha is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the employees in the category of Secretary. It is to be noticed that though the appointment of the petitioner as well as his promotions from time to time were ordered by the 2nd respondent - Central Sabha at Madras, the alleged misappropriation of funds relate to several transactions that took place during the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 in the office of the 1st respondent at Hyderabad while the petitioner was working there in the category of Secretary. As noticed above, the 1st respondent which is a Provincial Sabha having its own Service Rules is competent to take disciplinary proceedings against its employees in accordance with the provisions of its own Rules. The petitioner could not dispute the fact that his initial appointment as a Second Grade Clerk was only in the office of the 1st respondent at Hyderabad and except for a short period he worked althrough under the control of the 1st respondent including the period during which the alleged misappropriation of funds had taken place. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent – Provincial Sabha at Hyderabad – had issued a charge-sheet dated 29.6.2008 and the petitioner had submitted his reply on 23.7.2008 and 21.9.2008. Moreover, the 2nd respondent – Central Sabha at Madras – passed a Resolution dated 28.6.2009 that appropriate action be taken against the petitioner by the 1st respondent. The material on record also shows that pursuant to the said resolution the 1st respondent – Provincial Sabha at Hyderabad – lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Saifabad P.S., Hyderabad. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that so far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the petitioner is under the control of the 1st respondent – Provincial Sabha at Hyderabad – and he is governed by the provisions of the 1st respondent’s Employees’ Service Rules, 1998, but not by Rule 24 of the Employees’ Service Rules, 1967 made by the 2nd respondent – Central Sabha at Madras. Consequently, the 1st respondent alone is competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and therefore the impugned order of suspension was rightly issued by the President of the 1st respondent - Provincial Sabha at Hyderabad. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is without jurisdiction is untenable. So far as the correctness of the allegations are concerned, the same being the subject-matter of the enquiry which is pending, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion. Therefore , the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted on any ground whatsoever and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt.14.10.2009 gbs