IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9953 of 2008 Between: P. Hare Rama Prasad S/o. Venkat Rao Peravali Village & Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Boggulkunta, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinda, East Godavari District. 3 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (a) declaring the entire proceedings commencing with the date of orders of suspension through Proc.Rc.No.V2/60527/2004, dt. 23.02.2005 to the orders of punishment through Proc.Rc.No.V2/60527/2004, dt. 9.8.2006 are without jurisdiction as per the law declared by the full bench of this Hon'ble Court in Judgement dt.19.03.2008 in W.A.No.1789/2004 and batch, and have no legal existence and consequently declare that the said orders are void; (b) to declare my reversion to the post o Junior Assistant from the post of Manager (Person-in-Management) is without jurisdiction and direct the respondents to continue me as Manager (Person-in-Management) without any break or gap in the service by setting aside the proceedings Rc.No.B4/15530/2004, dt.4.8.2007; with all consequential benefits or issue an appropriate order or direction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.BALA KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9953 of 2008 ORDER: It appears, initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Peravali Group Temples, Peravali Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, with effect from 10.09.1993. Subsequently, he was authorized to exercise the powers, perform the functions and discharge the duties of an Executive Officer of Sri Chennakesava Swamy Temple and Sri Peddintlammavari Temple of Cherukuwada, and was designated as Person-in-Management of the said temples, by proceedings dated 31.08.2001 issued by the 1st respondent- Commissioner of the Endowments Department, A.P., in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 29 (5) (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). While that being so, the petitioner was placed under suspension, by order dated 23.02.2005 of the 1st respondent, for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him in the administration of the group temples, pending enquiry. Questioning the said suspension order, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.5736 of 2005, before this Court and this Court, while upholding the competency and jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to pass such suspension order, dismissed the said writ petition on 31.03.2005, with a direction that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner should be completed in all respects within a period of six months from the date of receipt of order from the Court. The review petition filed by the petitioner, seeking review of the said order, was also dismissed. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were concluded and, by proceedings dated 09.08.2006, the 1st respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, on the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government and the same was allowed by the Government on 28.07.2008, setting aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner. However, in the meanwhile, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 14.08.2006, requesting the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to repatriate the petitioner to his parent institution and, about one year thereafter i.e. on 04.08.2007, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, directing the petitioner to report to duties, as a Clerk, before the Manager, Group temples, Peravali, immediately. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said repatriation. The petitioner relies on a Judgment delivered by a Full Bench of this Court on 19.03.2008 in W.A.No.1789 of 2004 and batch, wherein the Full Bench dealt with the matters referred by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein an identical issue as was raised in W.P.No.5736 of 2005 fell for consideration, and held that the Commissioner and/or Assistant Commissioner of Endowments are not competent to suspend a temple employee performing functions and discharging duties of E.O. as authorized by Commissioner under Section 29 (5) (d) of the Act. The petitioner contends that, in view of the said judgment, the whole proceedings right from his suspension by the 1st respondent are vitiated. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Endowments, stating that the petitioner, having accepted the judgment rendered in the writ petition filed by him, cannot now contend that the whole proceedings are liable to be set aside in view of the judgment subsequently delivered by the Full Bench of this Court and the said contention is barred by the principle of res judicata. It is further stated that, in any event, it is the discretion of the Commissioner to authorize any employee of the temple to exercise the functions of the Executive Officer under Section 29 (5) (d) of the Act and the powers of that employee can be withdrawn by the Commissioner at any time without assigning any reasons and it does not amount to reversion from the post of Manager to the post of Junior Assistant. It is also stated that, even if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is set aside, he has no right to demand for reinstatement as Manager or Person-in-Management of the temple. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the plea of the petitioner that the whole proceedings right from the suspension of the petitioner are vitiated in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1789 of 2004 and batch, further contends that the petitioner was repatriated to his parent institution consequent to imposition of the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and, since the said punishment was set aside by the Government subsequently, the order of repatriation needs to be revoked and the petitioner has to be posted as Person-in-Management of the group temples. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the stand taken by the 1st respondent in his counter-affidavit and submits that the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent institution is not as a measure of punishment, but is only on administrative grounds, and nowhere in the proceedings, whereunder the petitioner was sought to be repatriated, it is indicated that such repatriation was on account of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Perused the impugned proceedings and other material made available on record. I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner that the entire proceedings right from his suspension from service to the imposition of punishment are vitiated in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1789 of 2004 and batch, cannot be accepted. The order of suspension was the subject matter of W.P.No.5736 of 2005 filed by him, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has considered the matter in detail and dismissed the said writ petition, by stipulating the time for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded and the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, which was subsequently set aside by the Government. Now, the petitioner cannot re-agitate those issues in view of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in some other matters, subsequent to conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Thus, the only issue that remains to be examined is whether the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent institution as a Clerk is as a measure of punishment. A plain reading of the proceedings dated 04.08.2007 of the 2nd respondent, whereunder the petitioner was repatriated to his parent institution, indicates that, basing on the instructions of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent repatriated the petitioner and directed him to report to duties, as a Clerk, before the Manager, Group Temples, Peravali, immediately. It does not indicate that such repatriation was as a measure of punishment. Further more, in the proceedings dated 31.08.2001, whereunder the petitioner was authorized to act as an Executive Officer of the institutions, the Commissioner made it clear that such authorization was in the interest of administration of institutions and that, under any circumstances, the services of the petitioner shall not be counted as Executive Officer and the services of the petitioner may be recalled at any time by the Commissioner in the interest of institution without assigning any reasons. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent institution cannot be said to be illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, the respondents have considered the cases of similarly situated employees, who were repatriated to their parent institutions, and revoked their repatriation, and thus the same benefit shall also be extended to the petitioner. If such is the situation, the petitioner is always at liberty to make a detailed representation before the concerned authority seeking to consider his case for being posted as Person-in-Management of the institutions, on par with the similarly situated employees. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 20th April, 2009. IBL