D S S S Subrahmanyam Somayaji Vs Sri Durgamalleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam

D S S S SUBRAHMANYAM SOMAYAJI, S/O.LAKSHMI NARYANA MURTHY, AGED 43 YEARS, SRI CHAKRA NAVAVARANA ARCHANA PARAYANADHAR, SRI DURGAMALLESWARASWAMYVARLADEVASTANAM, INDRAKEELADRI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT NOW NTR DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SRI DURGAMALLESWARA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTHANAM, INDRAKEELADRI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, NOW NTRDISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of MANDAMUS to set aside the charges framed against the petitioner by the 1 strespondent in Rc.No.E3/129/2026dated 10.01.2026 and the Additional charges in

¶17

2

¶18

Rc.No..E3/129/2026dated 22.01.2026 as violative of Rule 20 (3) and (4) of the AP CCA Rules of 1991, illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind , violative of Principles of Natural Justice, vague and indefinite charges and Pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 SUSPEND the charges framed against the petitioner by the 1 st respondent in Rc.No.E3/129/2026dated 10.01.2026 and the Additional charges in Rc.No..E3/129/2026dated 22.01.2026 as violative of Rule 20 (3) and (4) of the AP CCA Rules of 1991,and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.K R SRINIVAS

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

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

¶25

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondentauthorities in issuing the impugned charges framed against the petitioner by the 1^st respondent in the order dated 10.01.2026 and the additional charges in the order dated 22.01.2026 as violative of Rule 20(3) and (4) of the AP CCA Rules, 1991 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶29

The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:-

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that on 09.01.2026, while he was on duty for performing Sri Chakranavarchana Pooja, which is scheduled to commence

¶31

3

¶32

around 9.00 a.m, the Paricharika of the Devasthanam brought a tetra packet containing milk along with other pooja samagri, as per usual practice. After opening the sealed packet and pouring the milk into the silver vessel, the petitioner noticed insects floating in the milk. The petitioner said that offering impure milk during pooja would amount to serious ritual impropriety. Immediately upon noticing the issue, the petitioner refrained from using the milk and brought the matter to the attention of temple related personnel through the SDMSD Pooja Information WhatsApp group, which is internal communication group consisting of temple staff. Upon intimation, the concerned authorities reacted immediately, alternative arrangements were made and the Sreechakranavarchana Pooja was completed without any interruption. The petitioner acted purely in the interest of maintaining sanctity of rituals and continuity of pooja and not for any extraneous or improper purpose. The 1^st respondent formed an inquiry committee and called the explanation of the petitioner on 10.01.2026 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.01.2026 to the inquiry committee giving the facts. Without passing any orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned proceedings framing 6 charges and called the explanation of the petitioner. The very initiation of disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 20(3) and Rule 20(4) of the A.P.C.S(CCA) Rules, 1991. Subsequently the petitioner was placed under suspension and which is contrary to law.

¶33

4

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rules 20 and 21 of Rules, 1991, prescribes an elaborate procedure for conducting an enquiry for major penalties. Though the charge memo has been received in accordance with Rule 20(11) of Rules, 1991, the respondents have not furnished the relevant documents to the petitioner. He further submits that though the petitioner submitted his explanation 10.01.2026, without taking into consideration of the same and without passing any orders on it, the respondents placed the petitioner under suspense and he prays for setting aside the charges framed against the petitioner and revoke the suspension imposed against the petitioner.

¶35

Considering the submission and on perusal of the material on record, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned charges framed against the petitioner by the 1^st respondent dated 10.01.2026 and the suspension order, but on perusal of Rules 20 and 21 of Rules, 1991, there shall be a direction to the respondents to provide all the documents which are relevant for submission of a detailed explanation by the petitioner pursuant to the charge memo dated 10.01.2026, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After providing documents to the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh explanation within a period of two weeks thereafter and based on his explanation, the respondents authorities may proceed as per the procedure contemplated under Rules 20 and 21 of Rules, 1991 and conclude the enquiry as

¶36

5

¶37

per G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated

¶38

12.09.2022, which reads as follows:-

¶39

“ix. Government direct that in all simple cases the inquiry initiated against Government Servant shall be completed within three months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the inquiry should be completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minster.”

¶40