IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 31663 OF 2011 Between: P. Ramesh … Petitioner V/s. The Commissioner of Endowments Dharmika Bhavan, Boggulakunta Hyderabad & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N. Guru Gopal Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Endowments Sri Ch. Satish Kumar SC for Endowments The Court made the following: (Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 31663 OF 2011. O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking issuance of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the enquiry, even after a period of 5 ½ years against the petitioner is bad, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, pending disposal of the enquiry. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Sales Boy in the third respondent’s temple from 21-5-1998 by virtue of the Proceedings issued by the ﬁrst respondent on daily wage basis, initially for a period of one year and later it was extended from time to time. It is stated that from 29-5-2005 onwards, the temple authorities extracting his service as Typist only. While he was working as such, the second respondent issued Proceedings in RC.No. A1/123/2006, dated 30-1-2006 terminating the services and directed the third respondent to pass consequential orders on the allegation that he used to take some amounts i.e., Rs.50/- and Rs.100/- from Booking Clerk and adjusted the amounts, by the time of remittance by the Booking Clerk. Therefore, the petitioner has temporarily misappropriated the temple funds for his personal needs, Questioning the said action of the respondents, the petitioner ﬁled WP.No. 13619 of 2006 on the ﬁle of this Court on the ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction and the matter is still pending. His further case is that after ﬁling of the above writ petition, the ﬁrst respondent appointed an Enquiry Oﬃcer vide Proceedings in RC.No. B1/4789/2006 dated 17-9-2007 and the third respondent has issued Memo No.Enquiries/07, dated 14-12-2007 informing that the enquiry was ﬁxed on 22-12-2007 and directed the petitioner and others to attend the common enquiry. The Enquiry Oﬃcer has concluded the enquiry and submitted report to the third respondent vide Proceedings in RC.No. 44/2007, dated 10- 04-2008 holding that the charge is proved against the petitioner and further opined that since he was terminated already from contract basis, the framing of charges against him is quite unnecessary. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a show cause notice vide RC.No. 7/2006 dated 07-2008 calling for his objections by duly enclosing a report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03-8-2008 contending that no witness was examined by the Enquiry Oﬃcer and no document was marked and any ﬁnding of the Enquiry Oﬃcer based on nil evidence is nothing but perverse and the Enquiry Oﬃcer has no jurisdiction to give any suggestion except to give his ﬁndings, whether the charge is proved or not. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working under the control of the respondents on daily wages basis, an allegation was levelled that he is responsible for temporarily misappropriation of the temple funds and an enquiry has been initiated against him and the Enquiry Oﬃcer has been appointed. The Enquiry Oﬃcer submitted a report enclosing a copy of the ﬁnal report. Thereupon the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations levelled against him but thereafter no further action has been taken. 5. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 02-12-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 31663 OF 2011 CIRCULATION No. Date:02-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43 P