Gollapalli Venkata Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

GOLLAPALLI VENKATA CHALAPATHI SARMA, S/O. LATE G.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 6-15/1, GANAPATHI TEMPLE, BIKKAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, OPP.S.GRAND RESTAURANT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶14

THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶17

SRI LAKSHMI GANAPATHI SWAMY TEMPLE, REP., BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BIKKAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶18

THE TRUST BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SRI LAKSHMI GANAPATHI SWAMY TEMPLE, BICCAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL.

¶19

2

¶20

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings issued by the 6th respondent vide RC.No.Nil/2023, dated 15.04.2026 in removing the petitioner from service as Archaka from Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Swamy temple, Biccavolu village and mandal. East Godavari District and further directing to handover the (a) Gold and silver articles (b) gold and silver ornaments, (c) copper and brass articles, etc., to one Sri.Kondamanchili Satyanarayana without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary, one without jurisdiction and in violation of Art.14 and 21 of constitution of India apart from violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 and rules thereunder and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the 6th respondent vide RC.No.Nil/2023, dated 15.04.2026 and to continue the petitioner as Archaka in Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Swamy temple, Biccavolu village and mandal. East Godavari District and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Archaka in Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Swamy temple, Biccavolu village and mandal. East Godavari District by suspending the proceedings of the 6th respondent issued vide RC.No.Nil/2023, Dt. 15.04.2026 and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments, AP Region.

¶29

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The present writ petition is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 15.04.2026, issued by the 6^th respondent in removing the petitioner from service as Archaka from Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Swamy Temple, Biccavolu Village and Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶34

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have passed the final orders removing the petitioner from service as Archaka from Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Swamy Temple, Biccavolu Village and Mandal, East Godavari District on 15.04.2026 without following the procedure contemplated under law and also without following the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments.

¶35

Heard Sri J. Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent and Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent.

¶36

The respondents have admitted that though the enquiry has been conducted by an enquiry officer against the allegations made on the petitioner and after completing the enquiry, the respondents have issued the show cause notice before passing the impugned orders without providing the enquiry report to the petitioner.

¶37

The learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 submitted that based on the gravity of the charges and when

¶38

4

¶39

there are serious allegations against the petitioner though the petitioner was working as Archaka on contract basis, conducting of enquiry and providing of enquiry report to the petitioner are not required. The respondents have appointed an enquiry officer and conducted the enquiry, but they did not provide the enquiry report to the petitioner and directly they have removed the petitioner by issuing the impugned proceedings, which is contrary to law.

¶40

Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the fact remains that though the respondents have conducted the enquiry and no enquiry report was provided to the petitioner before removing him. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that action of the respondents in removing the petitioner is contrary to law and hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back for making a fresh enquiry.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 15.04.2026. The respondents are directed to issue fresh notice along with enquiry report to the petitioner within two days from today and thereafter the petitioner shall submit his reply within a period of five days. Thereafter the respondents shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, based on record and after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of submitting reply by the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

5

JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date:04.05.2026

GK

6