THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1564 of 2004 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The appellant while working as Junior Assistant in the first respondent temple was placed under suspension on certain allegations. He filed W.P.No.5300 of 2004 seeking a mandamus to declare that respondent No.1 has no power to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the temple employees including the appellant as the temple has not crossed the income of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum, and consequently, quash the proceedings of suspension in Rc.No.1 of 1998 dated 12.08.1998, for lack of source of power and jurisdiction. In the said writ petition, the appellant filed W.P.M.P.No.6917 of 2004 seeking to direct respondent No.1 to reinstate him into service immediately as no sanction was obtained by respondent No.1 for placing him under suspension for more than six months, pending disposal of the writ petition. Through the interim order dated 26.07.2004, the learned single Judge of this Court, directed respondent No.1 to reinstate the appellant into service immediately, however, observed that the said order does not preclude the respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the appellant. Aggrieved by the said observation, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the first respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in N. RAVINDRA MURTHY V. SHRI VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE, BONTHUPALLY, MEDAK DISTRICT[1] wherein it was held as under: “It is competent to the trustee/board of trustees or EO, as the case may be, to take disciplinary action against temple employees and temple employees discharging functions of EO in accordance with Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987. If the trustee or board of trustees or EO 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 view of the reasons stated in the above-cited judgment, we direct the first respondent to take disciplinary action against the appellant in accordance with the Rules mentioned therein. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:29.09.2011 sj [1] 2008(3) ALT 287 (F.B.)