IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11079 of 2004 Between: S.Ranga Ramanuja Charyulu, S/o.Tiruvangala Charyulu, Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 Asst.Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chikkadpally,Hyd. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, calling for the records of the concerning order of Notice dt.14-11- 2003 published in Andhra Bhoomi Daily Newspaper dt.14-11-2003 and declare the same as null and void, being violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and illegal, bad and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the applicant as Archaka in Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.LAKSHMANA CHARY, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is an archaka in the 2nd respondent temple, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. There is an allegation against the petitioner that he absconded from duty with effect from 28- 05-2003, and despite a paper notification dated 04-07-2003, he did not report to duty for a period of four months. Therefore, another notification was issued on 14-11-2003, about his unauthorized absence and asking his explanation as to why he shall not be removed from service. The petitioner submits that he has given his explanation on 27-11-2003 personally to the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected by him and therefore, he sent another copy of his explanation on 2-12-2003, through registered post. His further grievance is that even though the 2nd respondent received his explanation through registered post, he did not pass any orders. In the light of the grievance explained by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders after considering the explanation of the petitioner and proceed with the matter as per Rules. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _____________ 28-07-2004 Note: CC in three days. BO Mjl/* ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Asst.Commissioner –Cum-Secretary, Sri venkateswara Swamy Temple, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. 3. 2 C.D.copies.