THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.18925 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to impugned proceedings No.18/2011, dated 22-06-2011 issued by the 4th respondent with an ulterior motive without any power or authority and quash the same by declaring that the impugned order of suspension is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Attender on 10- 06-1978. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Assistant. Subsequently he was promoted as Senior Assistant and thereafter as Manager and posted as Manager of Sri Kesava Swamy Temple Talarevu East Godavari District. The 4th respondent in collusion with some of the employees working in various temples, placed him under suspension vide impugned proceedings No.18/2011, dated 22-06-2011 though he has no authority or jurisdiction to place him under suspension as he is not the Executive Officer of the temple. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the authority who passed the suspension order has no jurisdiction and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 4. The Executive Officer of Sri Coconada Annadana Samajam, Kakinada, (T) East Godavari District issued suspension order basing on the 14 charges framed by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada with regard to certain irregularities. Exercising Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987), the impugned order was passed. Under Section 37 of the Act, the trustee may after following the prescribed procedure and for reasons to be recorded in writing impose fine or order suspension. Section 38 of the Act deals with power of Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, to punish office-holders which reads thus: “Where it is noticed by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction that any office-holder or servant attached to an institution or endowment has not been dealt with suitably by the trustee or the Executive Officer as the case may be under Section 37 for any of the lapses specified in sub-section (1) thereof, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, may direct the trustee or the Executive Officer to take action under Section 37 failing which the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, may after following the prescribed procedure impose by an order in writing any of the penalties specified in sub-section (1) of that section on such office-holder or servant.” As seen from the above provision, it is clear that the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner may direct the Executive Officer or trustee to take action under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, a conjoint reading of both Sections would go to show that the Executive Officer who passed the order is having jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Enquiry Officer shall complete the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 12-07-2011 Hsd