1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 09..03..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.234 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 N. Narayanan Nambi @ Kannan, S/o. Late Narayanan Nambi, D.No.2A, Sannithi Street, Thirukostiyur, Sivagangai District. ..... Appellant - Vs - 1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai. 2. The Hereditary Trustee, Sivaganga Devasthanam Samasthanam, Sivagangai. 3. The Manager, Sivagangai Samasthanam Devasthanam, Sivagangai. ......Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2010 passed in W.P.(MD)No.8671 of 2010. Writ petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certioraified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings relating to N.K.No.3986/2010/AA2 dated 08.06.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pass suitable orders permitting the petition to perform his service. For Appellant :: Mr. M. V. Venkataseshan For Respondents:: Mr. M. Rajarajan Government Advocate J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.8671 of 2010. The said W.P.(MD)No.8671 of 2010 was filed challenging the order dated 08.06.2010 passed by the first respondent herein, whereby the revocation of suspension ordered on 25.02.2010 has been cancelled and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 again the appellant / petitioner has been placed under suspension for further enquiry. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was working as a Supervisor in the temple in question. Basing on certain allegations, an enquiry was proposed, but the appellant / petitioner herein had not attended the said enquiry on two occasions, however, on the third occasion, he had attended the enquiry. Basing on the said enquiry, on 15.07.2009 he was placed under suspension. After a lapse of nearly seven months, by order dated 25.02.2010 the suspension was revoked and the appellant herein was permitted to join duty i.e., according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the suspension has been imposed by way of a punishment and the appellant herein had also undergone the said punishment. Learned counsel submitted that having revoked the suspension by the order dated 25.02.2010 and permitting him to join duty, again by the order dated 08.06.2010, the appellant herein cannot be placed under suspension. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the suspension order passed on 15.07.2009 is not the suspension by way of an interim arrangement, but by way of punishment and after imposing the punishment and after the appellant had undergone the said punishment, the question of again subjecting the appellant for another enquiry and placing him under suspension again will not arise at all. Consequently, the order of the first respondent dated 08.06.2010 is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents / Department submitted that under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, an Appeal provision is available and without exhausting the said remedy, the writ petition has been filed and the same was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 4. The issue to be decided is whether the proceedings dated 15.07.2009 of the third respondent is an order of punishment or otherwise. 5. Admittedly, as per the order dated 15.07.2009, the wordings used are as follows:- "nkny fz;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; mog;gilapy; jpUf;nfhapypd; eyd; fUjp C& jpUf;nfhapy; !;jhdPfuhd jpU. ehuhazd; ek;gp vd;w fz;zd; vd;gtiu 16/07/2009e; njjp Kjy; kW cj;jut[ tUk;tiu jw;fhypf gzp ,ilePf;fk; bra;J cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ." As far as suspension is concerned, the same can be made by way of an interim arrangement i.e., to prevent the concerned employee from executing his work. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the same can also be made by way of a punishment. There is no doubt about this. 6. As far as the order in the case on hand is concerned, the wordings used are " 16.07.2009 e; njjp Kjy; kW cj;jut[ tUk;tiu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 jw;fhypf gzp ,ilePf;fk; bra;J cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ" i.e., to say from 16.07.2009 until further orders, the appellant herein has been placed under suspension. If it is imposed by way of a punishment, it is a settled principle of law that in the order the period should have been mentioned. As per the wordings used in the order dated 15.07.2009, it is only an interim arrangement since the wordings used are " jw;fhypf gzp ,ilePf;fk; ;". Consequently, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that by way of punishment, suspension has been imposed on the appellant cannot be accepted. However, by order dated 25.02.2010 the suspension has been revoked basing on the undertaking given by the appellant herein. 7. Now, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is willing to face the enquiry to be conducted. But, the grievance of the appellant is that he need not be placed under suspension again since already an enquiry has been conducted even as per the order dated 15.07.2009. It is not the case of the respondents / Department also that any other allegation of similar nature has been committed by the appellant herein. 8. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant herein need not be placed under suspension again. However, since the suspension is with regard to conducting further enquiry, as far as the suspension portion of the order dated 08.06.2010 is concerned, it is set aside and the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry in accordance with law and pass final orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to permit the appellant herein to join duty. 9. With the above observations, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai. 2. The Hereditary Trustee, Sivaganga Devasthanam Samasthanam,Sivagangai. 3. The Manager, Sivagangai Samasthanam Devasthanam,Sivagangai. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 5652 W.A.(MD)No.234 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 09.03.2011 Dpn/- SMA/07.04.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/