In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the respondents' failure to conclude a five-year-old enquiry into alleged misappropriation of temple funds and sought reinstatement. The Court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders on merits within six weeks.
Direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on merits within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO. 31663 OF 2011
Between: P. Ramesh … Petitioner V/s. The Commissioner of Endowments Dharmika Bhavan, Boggulakunta Hyderabad & 2-Ors. … Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N. Guru Gopal Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Endowments Sri Ch. Satish Kumar SC for Endowments
The Court made the following: (Order follows next page)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 31663 OF 2011.
O R D E R :
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the enquiry, even after a period of 5 ½ years against the petitioner is bad, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, pending disposal of the enquiry.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Sales Boy in the third respondent’s temple from 21-5-1998 by virtue of the Proceedings issued by the first respondent on daily wage basis, initially for a period of one year and later it was extended from time to time. It is stated that from 29-5-2005 onwards, the temple authorities extracting his service as Typist only. While he was working as such, the second respondent issued Proceedings in RC.No. A1/123/2006, dated 30-1-2006 terminating the services and directed the third respondent to pass
consequential orders on the allegation that he used to take some amounts i.e., Rs.50/- and Rs.100/- from Booking Clerk and adjusted the amounts, by the time of remittance by the Booking Clerk. Therefore, the petitioner has temporarily misappropriated the temple funds for his personal needs, Questioning the said action of the respondents, the petitioner filed WP.No. 13619 of 2006 on the file of this Court on the ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction and the matter is still pending. His further case is that after filing of the above writ petition, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer vide Proceedings in RC.No. B1/4789/2006 dated 17-9-2007 and the third respondent has issued Memo No.Enquiries/07, dated 14-12-2007 informing that the enquiry was fixed on 22-12-2007 and directed the petitioner and others to attend the common enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has concluded the enquiry and submitted report to the third respondent vide Proceedings in RC.No. 44/2007, dated 1004-2008 holding that the charge is proved against the petitioner and further opined that since he was terminated already from contract basis, the framing of charges against him is quite unnecessary. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a show cause notice vide RC.No. 7/2006 dated 07-2008 calling for his objections by duly enclosing a report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03-8-2008 contending
that no witness was examined by the Enquiry Officer and no document was marked and any finding of the Enquiry Officer based on nil evidence is nothing but perverse and the Enquiry Officer has no jurisdiction to give any suggestion except to give his findings, whether the charge is proved or not. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working under the control of the respondents on daily wages basis, an allegation was levelled that he is responsible for temporarily misappropriation of the temple funds and an enquiry has been initiated against him and the Enquiry Officer has been appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report enclosing a copy of the final report. Thereupon the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations levelled against him but thereafter no further action has been taken.
5. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.
6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.
CHANDRAIAH
02-12-2011 I s L
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO. 31663 OF 2011
CIRCULATION No.
Date:02-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43
P
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct the respondents to conclude a delayed enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits.
Whether to direct reinstatement of the petitioner pending disposal of the enquiry.
P. Ramesh
Commissioner of Endowments Dharmika Bhavan, Boggulakunta Hyderabad
Respondents 2 and 3
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
