IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.1706 of 2004 Between: Bellam Konda Ranga Chary …..Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. …..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1706 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent, Commissioner of Endowments, in passing the impugned order Rc.No.V4/56299/2003-1, dated 22.01.2004, as without jurisdiction and against the Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and also hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy and consequently set aside the same. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10.10.1993 in Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Nacharamgutta, Medak District. On 24.09.2003, the Hundi of the said temple was opened and money was counted. On the same day, A.C.B. authorities have conducted sudden check wherein, the petitioner was found in possession of Rs.2,000/- for which, he was placed under suspension by issuing proceedings dated 22.01.2004 by the Commissioner, Endowment Department. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondent, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, submitted that in exercise of powers vested under Section 38 of the Act, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension for irregularities committed by him on 24.09.2003. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that during the check of the A.C.B. authorities, the petitioner was found with Rs.2,000/- against the rules. Therefore, the Executive Officer vide Rc.No.SLNSD/25/2003, dated 25.09.2003, called for the explanation, for which, the petitioner offered his explanation on 25.09.2003 stating that he had not misappropriated the Hundi amount and the amount, which he had at that time was the hand loan taken from the Village Sarpanch. In support of the version of the petitioner, the Village Sarpanch also addressed a letter on 25.09.2003 stating that he has given the amount to the petitioner as hand loan and the said amount is no way concerned with the Hundi amount. On perusal of the said facts, the Executive Officer satisfied and dropped further proceedings against the petitioner and gave a statement to that effect. He further submitted that while the things stood thus, the respondent, earlier, vide Rc. No.V4/56299/2003-1, dated 22.11.2003, placed the petitioner under suspension and questioning the same, the petitioner, earlier, filed W.P. No.25077 of 2003 and this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition setting aside the order of suspension of the petitioner on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the respondent. It is also submitted that as per Section 37 of the Act, the Executive Officer has to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the temple employees and if he fails to take disciplinary action, after reminder to the competent authority by the Commissioner, Section 38 of the Act comes to play its role. As the Executive Officer, after satisfying with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, dropped the charges levelled against the petitioner and for the very same charges, now the respondent has no power and jurisdiction to conduct enquiry, which amounts double jeopardy. Therefore, he requested this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 22.01.2004 and allow the writ petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that earlier, this Court had an occasion to deal with the facts and circumstances of the present subject matter but on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the respondent, the writ petition, W.P. No.25077 of 2003, earlier filed by the petitioner, was allowed. But, now, after issuing necessary instructions to the Executive Officer of the temple vide Proceedings No.V4/26299/2003, dated 03.12.2003, to take appropriate action against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Act, keeping in view of the report of the A.C.B. officials and the order passed by this Court, and on his failure to do so, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 22.01.2004 duly exercising the powers vested him under Section 38 of the Act, pending finalisation of the enquiry. Therefore, he requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the record, admittedly the petitioner is an employee of the respondent and he is facing certain allegations. Based on those allegations, earlier the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension and questioning the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition and this Court while setting aside the order of suspension of the petitioner allowed the writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the respondent. Now, again the respondent passed the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The points that arises for consideration are: i) Whether the respondent has got the jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act to pass the impugned order? ii) In the event of dismissing the writ petition, whether such order is hit by doctrine of double jeopardy? For considering the aspect of whether the respondent has got the jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act to pass the impugned order, it is to be seen what Section 38 says, which reads as under: Power of Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner to punish office-holders etc., in certain cases:- (1) 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 of 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. (2) Any office holder or servant aggrieved by an order passed under sub- section (1) may within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an appeal if such order is passed by-- (a) the Commissioner, to the Government; (b) the Deputy Commissioner, to the Commissioner; and (c) the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner; and any order passed in such appeal shall be final. From the above, it is obvious that if the respondent has to impose any of the penalties, suspension, removal and dismissal, specified under sub-Section (1) of Section 37, prima facie, it is statutory obligation on the part of the respondent to direct the Executive Officer to take action under Section 37 of the Act, failing which, the respondent by exercising the powers vested him under Section 38 of the Act can impose the penalties of suspension, removal and dismissal as specified under sub-Section (1) of Section 37. In this regard, it is categorical submission on the part of the respondent that they have already addressed a letter dated 02/03.12.2003 to the Executive Officer to take appropriate action against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Act. But the Executive Officer failed to initiate any action against the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent, by exercising the powers vested him under Section 38 of the Act, passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2004, placing the petitioner under suspension, pending finalisation of the investigation. It is to be noted here that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after allowing the writ petition on the earlier occasion, the respondent directed the Executive Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter, in this regard, the Executive Officer appears to have addressed a letter dated 31.12.2003 to the respondent stating that all the process has been completed by the then Executive Officer and also did not find any remarks against the petitioner. Therefore, he could not go forward to take any action against the petitioner except once again recommending to transfer the petitioner to any other place. In view of the above, the respondent found that the enquiry said to have been conducted by the then Executive Officer was not satisfactory to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent found in the impugned order that the Executive Officer failed to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent has felt that the matter needs to be enquired. In view of the above, I am of the view that as the respondent had complied with the provisions prescribed under Section 38 of the Act, the respondent has got the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Insofar as, coming to the next aspect that in the event of dismissing the writ petition, whether such order is hit by doctrine of double jeopardy, it is to be noted here that on earlier occasion also the respondent passed the order, placing the petitioner under suspension, but questioning the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition that was allowed by this Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the respondent. Now it is clear from the case on hand that the respondent after complying with the necessary provisions under Section 38 of the Act only, passed the impugned order. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the event of dismissing the present writ petition, the same will be hit by doctrine of double jeopardy. The fact is that it is only a suspension, pending finalisation of the investigation by the Commissioner and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he got an alternative remedy of appeal before the Government and without exhausting the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Anyhow, the petitioner filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the impugned order and I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met directing the respondent to complete the investigation and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the respondent is directed to complete the investigation against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dt: 27.01.2011 Tjmr/LSK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.1706 of 2004 Date: 27.01.2011