THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3392 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the second respondent in not allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties from 01.12.2010, after expiry of his leave, as Sub-Editor of Sri Kanaka Durga Prabha, a religious monthly magazine being run by the second respondent-Devasthanam as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to permit him to attend his duties. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The second respondent engaged the services of the petitioner on daily wage basis at Rs.80/- per day on 17.07.2003 for a period of eleven months after obtaining permission from the first respondent for improving the circulation and income through advertisements to the said magazine. The said contract period was extended from time to time. It is stated that on 22.10.2010 one Nagamani gave a report against the petitioner at Machavaram L&O Police Station, based on which a case in Crime No.435 of 2010 was registered under Sections 420, 498-A, 324 and 343 of I.P.C. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada vide orders dated 16.11.2010. While so, the second respondent served a Memo dated 25.10.2010 calling for his explanation alleging that a news item was telecasted in TV9 Electronic Media making certain allegations by a woman against the petitioner due to which the temple lost its reputation. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations leveled against him. It is stated that the said Nagamani also gave a complaint to the second respondent against the petitioner on 04.11.2010 stating that he married her, but not looking after her properly and also harassing her. Subsequently, she gave another representation on 30.11.2010 withdrawing all the allegations made against the petitioner and requested him not to take action against the petitioner. After expiry of his leave, when the petitioner reported to duty on 01.12.2010, the second respondent has not allowed him to attend duties as his name was removed from the Attendant Register. Hence, the writ petition. The second respondent Devasthanam filed counter-affidavit stating that a case in Crime No.435 of 2010 under Sections 420, 498- A, 324 and 343 of I.P.C was registered against the petitioner basing on the complaint made by a woman viz., Nagamani stating that he married her concealing his first marriage with another lady and confined her in a room. After telecast of the said news in the electronic media and after publishing in the news papers, the petitioner absconded from his duties without informing his higher authorities. Basing on such news, the Executive Officer of Devasthanam issued Memo dated 25.10.2010 calling upon the petitioner’s explanation. The petitioner sent letter dated 01.11.2010 stating that he was on leave from 22.10.2010 to 05.11.2010 which was informed to the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam through a telegram. He further stated that Devasthanam has sent a letter to him on 25.11.2010 which was served on his wife and he came to know about the show cause notice issued to him through media/paper and therefore, requested time to submit his explanation. It is stated that the petitioner sent another telegram dated 22.11.2010 to the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam requesting to extend his leave upto 30.11.2010. On 22.11.2010, the writ petitioner has submitted an explanation to the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam against the show cause notice. The then Executive Officer of the Devasthanam has not considered the said explanation as the same was not satisfactory and it was not supported by valid reasons. It is further stated that after investigation the police filed charge sheet before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and the same is pending. The petitioner is working as an NMR on consolidated pay, but not on regular basis, and therefore, the provisions laid down under Section 37 of Endowments Act and CCA Rules are not applicable to his case. If the petitioner is allowed to attend his duties it not only causes severe damage to the reputation of the Devasthanam but also hurts the feelings of the devotees. It is specifically denied that the said Nagamani has not submitted any representation requesting the Executive Officer not to take any action against the petitioner. But in fact, she has submitted a detailed representation dated 03.02.2011 making so many allegations against him and requested the Executive Officer not to allow him to attend his duties till finalization of the said case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without there being initiating any disciplinary proceedings and conducting enquiry, the petitioner was simply not allowed to join duty, and therefore, he prays to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend his duties. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that since the petitioner is involved in a criminal case, the second respondent decided not to allow him to attend his duties till the finalisation of the said case and that the petitioner is not a regular employee and he is only working as NMR on consolidated basis, and therefore, C.C.A Rules are not applicable to him. The gravity of the allegations made against the petitioner, which were telecasted in electronic media and published in daily news papers, are to the effect that one Nagamani gave a complaint against him stating that he married her concealing his first marriage and that she was wrongfully confined in a room. Based on the complaint given by her, police registered a case in Crime No.435 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 498-A, 324 and 343 I.P.C. Therefore, the second respondent called for the explanation of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner gave his explanation, no action has been taken on the same. Therefore, it is for the second respondent to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take appropriate decision in pursuance of the explanation given by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J Date: 22.06.2011 va