Srinivas Narasimhan vs The Endowment Commissioner on 21 December, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Srinivas Narasimhan vs The Endowment Commissioner on 21 December, 2020

Bench: P.B. Bajanthri

                                1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI


     WRIT PETITION NO.32570/2016(GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

SRINIVAS NARASIMHAN
S/O S. NAGARAJ IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
HAVING RESIDENCE OPPOSITE
TO SRI CHELUVARAYA SWAY TEMPLE,
RAJA STREET, MELUKOTE,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTIRCT - 571 431.                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE FOR SRI. AJAY J.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER,
       HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION &
       CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,
       AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       MANDYA DISTRICT,
       MANDYA - 571 401.

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION.
       MANDYA - 571 401.

4.     THE TAHSILDAR,
       PANDAVAPURA - 571 434.

5.     THE TAHSILDAR,
       SRIRANGAPATTANA - 571 438.
                                 2




6.    EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      SRI CHELUARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
      MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
      MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.

7.    SRI S. NARASARAJA BHATTAR,
      S/O LATE SAMPATH KUMAR
      BHATTAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT VANAMAMALAI MUTT
      STREET, MELUKOTE, PANDAVAPURA
      TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.

8.    THE ADMINISTRATOR/ COMMITTEE OF
      MANAGEMENT, SRI CHELUVARAYA
      SWAMY TEMPLE, MELUKOTE,
      PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
      MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 431.
                                                ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAV R. FOR C/R7 (CP NO 4103/16))

      THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD: 30.5.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A) AND
ETC.,

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP    PHYSICAL   HEARING/VIDEO   CONFERENCING     HEARING
(OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                            ORDER

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a) Issue a writ in the nature of a certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 30th May 2016 bearing No.ADM/1/CR/384/2015-16, passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure-A) and

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Administrator/Committee of 3 Management of the Temple i.e., the 8th respondent to conduct the inquiry on the allegations of misconduct against the 7th respondent as per Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules and consequently direct the inquiry so initiated to be completed within 6 months.

c) Pass any such order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.

2. Petitioner is stated to be a devotee of the temple called Sri.Cheluvarayaswamy Temple, Melukote, Mandya District. His grievance is that seventh respondent-Pradana Archaka is stated to have manipulated and misappropriated temple's jewellery. On the aforesaid allegations, the seventh respondent was placed under suspension, pending Inquiry. Inquiry could not be completed as on 30.05.2016 due to administrative reasons. Resultantly, seventh respondent's suspension was revoked and further, a direction has been given to the concerned authority to complete the Inquiry proceedings within a period of three months vide Annexure-A dated 30.05.2016. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order in respect of revocation of suspension presented this petition on the score that before completion of Inquiry, seventh respondent is not entitled to be 4 taken back to duty. His apprehension is that seventh respondent is likely to commit same misdeeds, if he is taken back to duty.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the seventh respondent on instructions submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, B-report has been filed in a criminal case which suffice that he is entitled for re-instatement, subject to out come of disciplinary proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Question for consideration in the present petition is 'Whether seventh respondent is entitled to re-instatement pursuant to his suspension order dated 10.06.2013 read with re-instatement dated 30.05.2016 or not?' Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 wherein it is held that if the Article of Charges are not framed within a period of three months, in such circumstances, employee is entitled to re-instatement. That apart, prolonged suspension of an employee/officer is deprecated by the Apex Court. There is no infirmity insofar as revocation of suspension order on 30.05.2016. Insofar as Inquiry is concerned, 5 it is learnt that it is yet to complete on account of interim order dated 30.05.2016 passed in the present matter. Therefore, concerned respondent/competent authority who has been asked to complete the Inquiry within a period of three months shall complete the proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has not made out case so as to interfere with revocation of suspension of the seventh respondent. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court