THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2625 of 2005 Dated: 04.06.2010 Between: Avuthu Srinivasa Reddy. .. Petitioner. And Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone-II, Hathiramji Mutt Buildings, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the charge memo dated 19.04.2004 and the suspension order dated 29.01.2005 issued by the respondents on the ground that they have no power and jurisdiction to take up or initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The principles of law on the point are no more res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in N.R.Murthy v. Shri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Bonthupally, Medak[1] held that temple employee authorized to discharge the functions of E.O under Section 29 (5) (d) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) is not the E.O as described in Section 2(13) and appointed as per Sections 29(2) and (3) of the Act read with relevant Endowment Service Rules; that there would not be any change in the situation even where a temple employee is authorized to be person-in-management (PIM) under Section 29 (5) (d) of the Act to discharge functions and duties of E.O; that the Commissioner cannot exercise disciplinary control over temple employee authorized to be PIM; 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; and that it is competent to the trustee/board of trustee or E.O, as the case may be, to take disciplinary action against temple employees and temple employees discharging functions of E.O in accordance with Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 and if the trustee or board of trustee or E.O fails to take such action including the action to suspend a temple employee pending enquiry, then alone the Commissioner and/or department officers can take action. In the present case, the petitioner is authorized to be PIM under Section 29 (5) (d) of the Act to discharge functions and duties of E.O. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the impugned orders dated 19.04.2004 and 29.01.2005 passed by the respondents are liable to be set aside and are, therefore, set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 04.06.2010 v v [1] 2008(3) ALD 372 (FB)