Karnataka High Court
Sri H S Manjesh vs The Commissioner For Hindu Religious on 8 September, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.21025 OF 2021(GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. S. MANJESH,
S/O LATE SRI. SIDDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
HALEURU VILLAGE,
HULIYURUDURGA HOBALI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 218.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISCHANDRA M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
MALAI MAHADESHWARA VARTHA BHAVAN,
TIPPU SULTAN PALACE ROAD,CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-560 018.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SRI. HULIYURAMMA TEMPLE,
HULIYUR, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 218.
3. THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT
SRI HULIYURAMMA TEMPLE,
HULIYUR, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRTICT-572 218.
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT.
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B V KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.4.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R-1 IN
APPEAL NO.ADM 7AP 20/2019-2020 AND THE ORDER
DTD.9.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE R-2 AND
ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner has been removed from archakship by the second respondent - Executive Officer of the Tempe in question vide order dated 09.12.219 at Annexure-D and his appeal to the first respondent - Commissioner against the same came to be negatived vide order dated 04.12.2020 at Annexure-A. Therefore, he is knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving against the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that for taking disciplinary proceedings, Rule 17 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 vests power in the 3 Managing Committee of the Temple in question and therefore, the order of the Executive Officer and the appellate order of the Commissioner are without jurisdiction and need to be voided.
3. Learned AGA on request having appeared for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. However, the third respondent - Temple has chosen to remain represented despite service of notice.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court finds submission of petitioners counsel to be legal and have force in view of Rule 17 of 2002 Rules which reads as under:
Disciplinary action against Archakas and temple servants:- The following penalties may be imposed on Archakas and other temple servants by the Committee of management for any dis-obedience, misconduct, breach of trust, in-capacity, neglect of duties [for any disqualification specified in Section10-A] of other sufficient causes:
(a) censure;4
(b) fine;
(c) withholding of increments;
(d) reduction of pay;
(e) recovery from pay of any loss caused to the institution;
(f) removal from service or dismissal from service."
Thus, the Executor Officer could not have made the impugned order. Even the Commissioner has lost sight of this legal position. Thus, both the impugned orders are unsustainable, as being non-est. In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds;
a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders. Matter is remitted to the Managing Committee of the third respondent - Temple for processing in accordance with law, after notice to the petitioner. All contentions in this regard are kept open, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv