Allowed¶41

A.Suresh Kumar v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC21 Feb 2025WA(MD)/862/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.A(MD) No.862 of 2022, Madras High Court Madurai Bench, decided 21.02.2025 by G.R.Swaminathan & M.Jothiraman JJ. Poojari/hereditary-trustee claimant of Arulmighu Vanniamman Temple, Minnampalli, Karur suspended by trustees on 26.07.2011; 14-year continuance of suspension held punitive and bad in law; suspension set aside; appeal allowed, no costs. References: Clause 15 Letters Patent; TN HR&CE Act Ss.47, 49, 6(9), 6(11), 6(22), 63(b); fit person; SCN 15.07.2011; O.A.No.13 of 2010; W.P.(MD)No.21964 of 2016.

What did the court decide?

The order impugned in the writ petition (the suspension) is set aside; the writ appeal is allowed with no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.7116 of 2022) is closed. ¶41

A.Suresh Kumar Vs the Joint Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A(MD) No.862 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 21.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.A(MD) No.862 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.7116 of 2022

¶7

A.Suresh Kumar

¶8

... Appellant / Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administration Department, Trichy.

¶11

2.Arulmighu Vanniamman Temple, Minnampalli, Karur Taluk, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Allied Ganesan, Allied Textiles & Dyeings, Vengamedu, Kamadhenu Nagar, Pugalur Road, Karur District. ... Respondents / Respondents

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1/6

¶14

W.A(MD) No.862 of 2022

¶15

PRAYER:

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in W.P. (MD)No.21964 of 2016 on the file of this Court and thereby allow this appeal.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.Ms.J.Anandhavalli For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R1 : Mr.P.Aathimoolapandian for R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

( Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

The appellant herein was functioning as poojari of Arulmighu

¶22

Vanniamman Temple, Minnampalli Village, Karur Taluk. He was suspended by the board of trustees on 26.07.2011. The case of the appellant is that he is not only a poojari but is also the hereditary trustee of the temple. Seeking such declaration, he filed O.A.No.13 of 2010 before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Trichy. Since for more than five years, the suspension continued, the appellant filed W.P.

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.A(MD) No.862 of 2022

¶26

(MD)No.21964 of 2016 questioning the said order. The writ petition was

¶27

disposed of on 21.01.2022 by issuing the following directions:-

¶28

“24. The following order is passed:

¶29

a) Depending on whether the said temple is a nonlisted temple or a listed temple a Fit person shall be appointed forthwith by the appropriate authority either under Section 49 or Section 47 of TN HR&CE Act within a fortnight from today i.e., on or before 04.02.2022;

¶30

b) the Fit person so appointed will obviously become a Trustee in the light of definitions of Executive Officer, Hereditary Trustee and Ttrustee in Sections 6(9), 6(11) and 6(22) of TN HR&CE Act. This Trustee (Fit Person) shall forthwith embark upon the exercise of examining the explanation of the writ petitioner qua SCN dated 15.07.2011 and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as his/her business would permit but in any event within six weeks from 04.02.2022 i.e., on or before 18.03.2022;

¶31

c) the proceedings before the first respondent initiated in 2011 assailing the SCN dated 15.07.2011 SCN and also seeking stay of the impugned order will now stand terminated;

¶32

d) O.A.No.13 of 2010 said to have been filed under Section 63(b) of TN HR&CE Act and said to be pending on the file of the first respondent shall be adjudicated upon in accordance with Chapter V quasi judicial inquiry proceedings as expeditiously as the business of the first respondent would permit and in any event within three months from today i.e., on or before 28.04.2022.”

¶33

Since the writ petitioner did not obtain any relief, the present writ appeal

¶34

came to be filed. The order of suspension is as follows:-

¶35

3/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.A(MD) No.862 of 2022

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.A(MD) No.862 of 2022

¶41

This order has to go for more than one reason. It is well settled that the employer can suspend the employee as a measure of punishment or in contemplation of initiating disciplinary proceedings. The proceedings dated 26.07.2011 does not appear to fulfil either of the parameters. Be that as it may, no suspension can be allowed to continue for 14 long years. It has acquired a punitive character. On this sole ground, we hold that the continuance of the appellant's suspension is bad in law. The order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

(G.R.S., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 21.02.2025

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

5/6

¶46

W.A(MD) No.862 of 2022

¶47

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.