IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1329 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/02/2008 in WP NO : 13316 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshithai Temple, Zonnawada, Buchireddipalem (M) Nellore District., Rep. by its Executive Officer, N. Yanadi Setty, S/o. Venkataratnam, aged about 54 years, Occ: Executive Officer. 2 Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamashithai Temple Zonnawada, Buchireddipalem (M), Nellore District, Rep.by its Executive Officer ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Sri Kota Gopal Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshithai Temple, Zonnawada, Buchireddipalem (M) Nellore District. 2 The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multizone-II, Tirupathi. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.N.USHA KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RAVI SHANKER The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) The second respondent in the writ petition filed this Writ Appeal feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 28.02.2008 made in WP No.13316 of 2006 by a learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition, revoking the suspension and restoring the first respondent to duty forthwith and further directing the respondents to appoint an enquiry officer to conduct and complete the enquiry contemplated against the first respondent, within a period of four months. The writ petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the appellant – Temple. While so, charges were framed against the first respondent herein vide show cause notice dated 6.8.2005, to which he submitted his explanation on 10.2.2006. However, the first respondent was placed under suspension by order dated 27.1.2006. The learned Single Judge referring to the decision of this court in Ch. Sri Lakshmi Vs. Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada and another (2002(4) ALT 553 (DB) has allowed the writ petition, as stated above. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent in the writ petition viz., Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamashithai Temple, filed the present Writ Appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the enquiry contemplated against the first respondent herein is completed but final orders could not be passed in view of pendency of the Writ Appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the first respondent, we modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant temple to complete the enquiry and pass final orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy February 26, 2009 MAS