Madras High Court
D.Kumar Iyer vs Arulmighu Sri Subramania Swami ... on 24 January, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20864 of 2022 and 946 of 2023
D.Kumar Iyer ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Arulmighu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil,
Through its Chairman,
Board of Trustees,
Tiruchendur,
Tuticorin District.
2. The Executive Officer / Joint Commissioner,
Arulmighu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil,
Through its Chairman,
Board of Trustees,
Tiruchendur,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to
the impugned proceedings dated 10.09.2022 and 14.11.2022 in Na.Ka.No.
4933/2022/U(2) of the second respondent herein and quash the same.
_________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
for Mr.S.Chandrasekar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan
ORDER
The impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.4933/2022/U(2), dated 10.09.2022 and 14.11.2022, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the President of Sri Subramania Swami Thirukovil Swanthira Paribalana Sthalathar Sabha. The said Temple is a famous Public Religious Institution, administered by the Board of Trustees and an Executive Officer appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Further, the petitioner is the Mukkani Brahmins also called as 'Thirusuthanthiraras' and numbering about 200 families were brought by Lord Subramaniaswamy for performance of religious services in the Temple and they were are also called as 'Sthalathars'. They performed all religious practices in the Temple, _________ Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022 viz., Pooja, Archana, Kattiyam, Kaiyatchi, i.e., handing over of holy jewels to be adorned to Lord Subramaniaswamy and Adyanam, Panchangam, Veda Parayanam etc., They were given contributions by the Temple Administration for the religious services rendered by them as their share either as Kattalai Iyer or as Thirisunthathiraras. They are not servants of the Temple, but persons associated with the religious practice and religious service of the Temple being entitled to receive shares or emoluments for the Murai. As a President of the said Sabha, the petitioner have instituted a Suit in O.S.No.157 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Thiruchendur for declaring them as denomination and they are entitled to perform the religious services and the same is pending. While so, the show cause notice has been issued by the second respondent, vide proceedings, dated 10.09.2022, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation that on 07.09.2022, he had taken four devotees for Uchikala Pooja, despite the ban for the same. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner has given suitable reply. But the second respondent has passed the impugned punishment order, dated 14.11.2022 preventing the petitioner to do Kainkaryam for thirty days. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition. _________ Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is not an employee of the Temple, he is the Sthalathar and for religious denomination, already he filed a suit and the same is pending before the Sub Court, Thiruchendur. While so, treating the petitioner as an employee of the Temple and taking disciplinary action against the petitioner is not sustainable one. Further, as per the Punishment of Office Holders and Servants of Religious Institutions (other than Maths and on Specific Endowments attached thereto) Rules, if it is applicable to the petitioner, they have to follow the procedure contemplated in the Rules. However, without following the procedure contemplated in the Rules, passing of the present punishment order against the petitioner, is not sustainable one. Further, the petitioner as a devotee, is entitled to visit the Temple and no one can prevent the devotee to visit the Temple. However, as a Sthalathar, the petitioner is entitled to perform pooja to Lord Subramaniaswamy. By way of present impugned order, the petitioner had already suffered seven days for not entering into the Temple. Hence, this Court may set aside the impugned order of punishment, since the petitioner had already suffered punishment for seven days and issue a direction to the _________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022 first respondent to take decision for disciplinary proceedings in the manner known to law.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the present impugned order is not a punishment as against the petitioner and it is only an interim suspension order for a period of thirty days. He further submitted that the petitioner is not prevented from worshipping the Lord Subramaniaswamy, but he is not entitled to do Kainkaryam for Lord Subramaniaswamy, since he violated the ban order allowing the four persons for Uchikala Pooja. The Board of Trustees have to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and the appropriate order would be passed by concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by following the procedures contemplated in the Rules, if the petitioner has committed error in allowing the devotees for Uchikala Pooja which was banned by the Temple Authorities.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court.
_________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022
6. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner rendered service in the second respondent Temple and the allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner during the ban for Uchikala Pooja, allowed four persons for worshipping Lord Subramaniaswamy and thereby the present impugned order is passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the impugned order is an order of punishment, whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents claims that it is only an interim direction. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered seven days suspension period and he was not allowed to do pooja for Lord Subramaniaswamy for seven days.
7. In view of the above, already petitioner suffered suspension period of seven days, this Court reduces thirty days period into seven days. Further, the liberty is granted to the first respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner in terms of Punishment of Office Holders and Servants of Religious Institutions (other than Maths and on Specific Endowments attached thereto) Rules within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is _________ Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022 directed not to accompany any persons to do pooja to Lord Subramaniaswamy till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
24.01.2023 NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji To
1. The Chairman, Arulmighu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Board of Trustees, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.
2. The Executive Officer / Joint Commissioner, Arulmighu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Through its Chairman, Board of Trustees, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.
_________ Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
vji W.P.(MD)No.26672 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20864 of 2022 and 946 of 2023 24.01.2023 _________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis