Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) Any office holder or servant aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-section (1) may within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an appeal if such order is passed by--
(a) the Commissioner, to the Government;
(b) the Deputy Commissioner, to the Commissioner, and
(c) the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner; and any order passed in such appeal shall be final.

6. Section 37 of the Act declares that office holders and servants attached to a religious institution shall be under the control of trustee or board of trustees. They can be dismissed, removed, suspended or fined for breach of trust, misappropriation, incapacity, disobedience, misconduct, violation of code of conduct or neglect of duty or for any other sufficient cause. The exercise of power however is subject to procedure prescribed under Disciplinary Rules. Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act provides that if annual income of temple exceeds ten lakh rupees, power to impose any of the penalties, has to be exercised by EO as per rules. Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act is given overriding effect, which only means that it has application only in respect of temples classified under Section 6(a) of the Act. In regard to temples, whose annual income is less than five lakh rupees and are classified either under Section 6(b) or 6(c) of the Act, only trustee is given disciplinary power. Sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the Act provides for an appeal against order of trustee to appropriate authority and Sub-section (4) provides further second appeal either to the Government or the Commissioner, as the case may be. Sub-section (5) enables trustee to direct EO to take suitable action against office holder. If action is not taken by EO, trustee can take action ignoring EO. Section 38 of the Act is a provision intended to control exercise of disciplinary power by the Board of Trustees or EO, as the case may be in certain situations. If trustee does not deal with an employee, Section 38(1) of the Act empowers appropriate authority of Department of Endowments to direct taking action under Section 37 of the Act and in disobedience thereof impose penalties under Section 37(1) of the Act.

7. Can temple employee attached to religious institutions be transferred to another religious institution? The Commissioner, Additional Commissioner or Regional Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner are appointed under Section 3 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act enumerates powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner. The Administration of religious institutions shall be under the general superintendence and control of Commissioner. This power includes passing of any order, which may be necessary to ensure that all religious institutions are properly administered and their income is duly and properly used. In addition to general power, Section 39 of the Act provides for transfer of temple employees. Section 39(1) of the Act confers power on the Commissioner to transfer any temple employee attached to religious institution to any other institution in accordance with the Rules made by Government. Section 39(2) of the Act confers power of transfer on Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be having jurisdiction over an area. Rules which are made by the Government are not brought to the notice of this Court. In the absence of Rules laying down modalities for exercise of power of transfer, it can be presumed that such power has to be exercised keeping in view the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act. That is to say, transfer of temple employee from one institution to another institution has to be effected keeping in view proper administration of religious institution.

39. There are other reasons also to reject contention of learned Counsel that EO should be paid salary from out of CFS. A PIM authorized to discharge functions of EO can always be recalled by the Commissioner if such a need ceases. It might be quite possible that subsequently a regular board of trustees is appointed or it could also be possible that a temple in a group of temples goes out of income limit of Rs. 50,000/-. In such context, very incongruous situation would prop up. On a given day, a PIM would draw higher salary as EO under Section 29(6) of the Act and immediately after recall, would again be temple employee. There cannot be dispute or denial that a temple employee even after authorization to act as EO either in the same temple or other temple continues to be temple employee. If this position is not accepted, there is likelihood of PIM losing an opportunity of being considered for the post of EO as per his eligibility. Hence, temple employee acting as PIM cannot be paid salary as per Section 29(6) of the Act. His salary has to be paid by concerned temple out of temple funds.

The PIM is an employee of a temple authorized under Section 29(5)(d) of the Act to discharge functions of EO as stop gap arrangement wherever there was no such EO in respect of a religious institution. A temple employee is appointed by trustee under Section 35 of the Act read with Officeholders Rules. The salary and emoluments of temple employee are paid from out of the temple funds, which are provided in the temple budget under Section 57(2) of the Act. The disciplinary power and control over temple employee vests in the trustee under Section 37 of the Act and procedure for dealing with misconduct is provided under Disciplinary Rules. Even where trustee fails to take action against an erring temple employee, Commissioner or other department officer cannot take action directly. They have to first advise the trustee or EO (if such EO is there) to take action under Section 37 of the Act failing which - then only - Commissioner or other department officer can take action against erring temple employee. Thus there is no direct relationship of master-servant/employer- employee between commissioner/ Government and temple employee. A legal regime for the purpose of regulating the temple administration is only in place and there is no direct control by the Government over temple employees nor the salary of temple employee, is paid by Government. There would not be any change in the situation even where a temple employee is authorized to be PIM under Section 29(5)(d) of the Act to discharge functions and duties of EO. As already held above, salary of temple employee authorized to be PIM cannot be paid from out of CFS. It is paid out of temple funds. Therefore Commissioner cannot exercise disciplinary control over temple employee authorized to be PIM. Rule 6 of Disciplinary Rules has to be read along with Section 38 of the Act. So read, it contemplates suspension of PIM pending enquiry by trustee or trust board. In case temple employee is not suspended for grave misconduct, Commissioner or other competent department official has to advise trustee/EO/trust board to place that temple employee acting as PIM under suspension pending enquiry. If advice is ignored, department official can exercise such power. Rule 6 by itself cannot be construed as conferring power on Commissioner to suspend temple employee acting as PIM under suspension, ignoring Section 38 of the Act. Suspension of an employee pending enquiry by incompetent authority would be void.