Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam on 24 December, 2025
APHC010530052022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 32669/2022
Between:
M S S Murali Krishna ...PETITIONER
AND
The Commissioner Of Endowments and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B RAGHAVENDRA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. C SRINIVASA BABA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 4455/2021
Between:
J Radesh ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRINIVASULU KURRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. C SRINIVASA BABA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 12615/2021
Between:
2
K. Soma Sekhar, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Tirumala Tirupati DevasthanamsTtd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V UMA DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. C SRINIVASA BABA
2. NVS PRASADA VARMA
WRIT PETITION NO: 13276/2021
Between:
G.krishna Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V UMA DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. C SRINIVASA BABA
2. NVS PRASADA VARMA
WRIT PETITION NO: 14052/2021
Between:
Nimmagadda Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M VIDYAVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. a Suman
2. C SRINIVASA BABA
3
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 19920/2021
Between:
C Satish Babu ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V UMA DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. C SRINIVASA BABA
2. NVS PRASADA VARMA
WRIT PETITION NO: 20786/2021
Between:
T Muktheshwara Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V UMA DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. C SRINIVASA BABA
2. NVS PRASADA VARMA
WRIT PETITION NO: 23757/2021
Between:
R. Rama Murthy ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V UMA DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
4
1. C SRINIVASA BABA
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr.B.Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.32669 of 2022, Ms. V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.12615, 13276, 19920, 20786 & 23757 of 2021, Ms. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.14052 of 2021, Mr.C.Srinivasa Baba and Mr. N.V.S. Prasada Varma, learned Standing Counsels for TTD, appearing for the respondents.
2. The issue raised in the present writ petitions is common. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of all the writ petitions through this common order.
3. All the petitioners are working at the 3rd respondent TV channel. It is contented that on a complaint being made by one devotee of Lord Balaji that he had received a porn link on his birthday in a programme called "Shatamanam Bhavathi", a programme of TTD, the vigilance and security wing of TTD had investigated the said incident and it was found that an office subordinate of the channel, working in the 3rd respondent office had sent the said link to the devotee. In the said context, the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of TTD was requested by the 3rd respondent channel to conduct a detailed enquiry on the issue to find out further more culprits, if any. 5 In the said connection, the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of TTD conducted enquiry and reported that the petitioners herein were involved in browsing the unethical and obscene content while discharging their duties at a sacred place of Tirumala and working for a corporate entity established with an objective of propagating Hindu Sanatana Dharma, thereby tarnishing the image of the 3rd respondent in the eyes of the devotees of Lord Balaji. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners herein who were in senior positions in the said 3rd respondent Corporation. Thereafter, an enquiry committee was appointed with the senior officials of the TTD. In the said inquiry, all the petitioners therein were given personal hearing. The committee submitted its report holding that the petitioners herein were involved in watching the objectionable content on YouTube. In pursuance of the said enquiry committee's report, the petitioners were issued Memos calling for objections. After considering the written explanation submitted by the petitioners herein, the order impugned is passed. Challenging the same, the instant writ petitions are filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, in an enquiry ordered in the case of another employee, the vigilance officer was alleged to have found certain adverse material against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners were issued with impugned proceedings.
5. It is contended by the learned counsels for the petitioners, Ms.M.Vidyavathi, Ms.V.Umadevi and Mr. B.Raghavendra Rao, that the 6 removal of a regular employee can only be done through a regular enquiry after framing charges, by appointing an enquiry officer, after conducting enquiry and after giving due opportunity to the delinquent employees to cross-examine the witnesses. It is further contended that if the impugned order of termination is termination simpliciter, no enquiry is necessary. However, when the subject termination order is based on an allegation of misconduct against the petitioner, the same contemplates a regular inquiry. The order causes stigma. It is further contended that, if proceedings are initiated based on a report from an external agency, namely the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of the TTD, it certainly requires more caution while imposing a major penalty. The petitioner's services cannot be terminated without any departmental inquiry being ordered. Ms. V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners,in support of her contentions, places reliance on the following judgments:
(a) the decision of this Court in the case of K.Soma Sekhar, S/o. Yellaiah Vs. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati,
(b) the decision of this Court in W.P.No.25868 of 2012,
(c) the decision of this Court in the case of G.Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Commissioner of Endowments.
6. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. Their main objection is that the 3rd respondent is a private corporate entity. Therefore, the petitioners 7 cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the petitioners rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others1.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, placing reliance on the decisionof Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd., contends that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners have joined the office of the 3rd respondent after signing the agreement for employment. It is thus contented that after signing the agreement for employment, they are bound by the agreement, and the clauses of the said agreement. It is further contended that the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer conducted enquiry into the whole issue of a devotee receiving a porn link in the programme meant for wishing a devotee on the date of his birthday. The vigilance inquiry unfolded certain other unethical actions of the petitioners herein. Unethical actions and attitude of the petitioners herein compelling the 3rd respondent to dispense with their services from the 3rd respondent, which is a corporate entity incorporated with an object of propagating Hindu Sanatana Dharma. Placing reliance on the above- referred judgment in the case of St.Mary's Education Society, the learned 1 (2023) 4 SCC 498 8 Standing Counsel, Mr. N.V.S. Prasada Varma, contend that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same should be dismissed.
8. It is contended that the petitioners were found to be engaged in browsing the objectionable websites, which undermines the object of the TV channel for which it was created/incorporated. In the said connection, the vigilance officer of TTD submitted a report. Based on the said report, show-cause notices were issued to all petitioners herein, requiring them to explain. Therefore, the enquiry committee was constituted with the senior officials of TTD. The enquiry committee conducted a detailed enquiry after providing the petitioners with an opportunity to be heard. The enquiry committee submitted its report stating that the petitioners have violated the conditions of service, conditions of agreement of service, and recommended action. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioners have submitted their explanation. the impugned proceedings were passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent, terminating the services of the petitioners.
9. The petitioners contend that they were terminated from service without any enquiry. The report, which formed the basis for issuing the impugned proceedings, is a preliminary enquiry. No opportunity was given to the petitioners. The same was conducted behind the back of the petitioners. Without framing charges, without appointing an enquiry officer, the impugned proceedings have been passed. It is thus contended that the same cannot be 9 sustained as the same are in violation of the principles of natural justice and are in breach of the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules (CCS(CCA) Rules), 1965. The punishment that has been imposed is a major punishment. Therefore, it calls for a regular disciplinary inquiry under the provisions of the Rule 29 (5) of CCA Rules.
10. Considered the submissions. Before entering into the main contentions of the petitioners, it is deemed appropriate to address the preliminary issue of maintainability of the writ petition as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As seen from the record, the services of the petitioners were engaged by the 3rd respondent, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (at the relevant time). The company was registered as private limited company with no profit and with an object of propagating Hindu Sanatana Dharma. Having regard to the same, it is relevant to extract the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Courtin the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, which reads as follows:
"75.We may sum up our final conclusions as under:--
(a) An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions.
The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective 10 benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public.
(b) Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the status of "State" within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element.
(c) It must be consequently held that while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service.
(d) Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided the school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the term, an employee of a non-teaching staff engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration or internal management is only an agency created by 11 it. It is immaterial whether "A" or "B" is employed by school to discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract between a school and non-teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non-teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered by the court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty.
(e) From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it is apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. In other words, the action challenged has no public element and writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the action was essentially of a private character."
11. Having regard to the above principle of law, I am of the view that the writ petitions are not maintainable. In the facts of the case, the 3rd respondent, the TV channel, is a non-profit organization incorporated under the Companies Act. Merely because a channel broadcasts to the general public, it cannot be considered as a person discharging the public duties, more so its employees, whose duties are governed by a contract of employment. In the instant case, it is stated that the petitioners' service conditions are governed by contractual obligations as they have signed an agreement at the time of their appointment.
12. In view of the same, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex in the case referred supra, would squarely apply to the facts of the case, 12 accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:24.12.2025 ANI 13 206 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION Nos.32669 of 2022 and 4455, 12615, 13276, 14052, 19920, 20786 & 23757 of 2021 Date:24.12.2025 ANI