HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15335 of 2011 Date of Order:14.06.2011 Between: D.Sai Babu ..Petitioner and Commissioner of Endowments and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PEITTION No.15335 of 2011 ORDER :- This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in placing the petitioner under suspension as without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the Memo No.A1/14957/2011-2, dated 04.05.2011, of respondent No.1 and the consequential proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.B1/535/2011, dated 11.05.2011. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are as follows:- The petitioner was the permanent employee of respondent No.3 temple and while he was working as such in the temple, respondent No.1, vide proceedings No.A1/41267/2010, dated 14.10.2010, transferred him to respondent No.2 temple and he joined in respondent No.2 temple on 22.10.2010 and working as such. The Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple is the disciplinary authority for the employees of respondent No.3 temple. While the petitioner was working in respondent No.3 temple i.e., prior to 22.10.2010, the Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple has framed some minor charges against him and he submitted his explanation and the said proceedings are pending and meanwhile he was transferred to some other temple. On 13.02.2011, some files of respondent No.3 temple were lost, while they were in transit. A charge memo was issued against the person who was responsible for loss of the office files and punishment was awarded. Respondent No.3 has also built up the duplicate files by gathering the charge memo and the explanation of the petitioner. While the things stood thus, respondent No.1 issued directions to respondent No.3 to place the petitioner under suspension because of the loss of office files. The proceedings issued by respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. It is the case of the petitioner, after issuance of the proceedings by respondent No.1, respondent No.3 wrote a factual report in A1/536/2001, dated 09.05.2011, informing to respondent No.1 that he was transferred long back to some other temple and he was not responsible for missing files and requested to reconsider the action to be proposed. When the matter is still pending consideration of respondent No.1, respondent No.2, who is not even the employer of the petitioner, had placed him under suspension purporting to implement the orders of respondent No.1. When the employer of the petitioner himself felt that he was not responsible for the incident of file missing and need not be suspended, the person who is not even the dispensary authority, has placed him under suspension without any power. Hence, the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was already transferred to another temple on 14.10.2010 and that the Joint Commissioner addressed a letter to the Commissioner stating that the petitioner was no way responsible for the missing of the previous file relating to the misconduct of the petitioner and, therefore, it amounts to non-application of the mind by the disciplinary authority in placing the petitioner under suspension. 3. On the other hand, learned Government pleader for the respondents contended that the contentions raised by the petitioner are pure questions of fact, which have to be decided during the course of enquiry and that the previous disciplinary file relating to the petitioner himself was found missing and it can be prima facie said that the petitioner was only responsible for missing of the file. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. It is not in dispute that the authority, who passed the impugned order, dated 04.05.2011, is the competent authority to place an employee under suspension. An employer can place an employee under suspension in pursuance of a misconduct, but at the same time the allegations must prima facie show that there was a serious misconduct. Certain files relating to the Vigilance Department were found missing on earlier occasion. The petitioner was subjected to charge sheet as he allegedly committed some misconduct including demand of money from the barbers. It seems that file was found missing. Though the petitioner was transferred from that place, the necessary inference that can be drawn in the facts and circumstances is that the petitioner may be responsible for missing of his own file because three months prior to his transfer he was working at the place where the file was found missing. The question as to whether who is responsible for the missing of the file and whether at what point of time the file was found to be missing from the office and at that point of time whether the petitioner was actually present in discharging his duties or not, are purely questions of fact which have to be decided and determined by the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry. Unless it is shown that there are mala fides on the part of the disciplinary authority in placing the employee under suspension, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. No mala fides are attributed to the authority, who passed the impugned order. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 10, 2011 lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15335 of 2011 Date: 14.06.2011 LMV