Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

40. Section 29(5)(d) of the Act as it stands now was substituted by amendment.

As per unamended Section 29(5)(d) (prior to A.P. Act No. 14 of 2002), in the absence of EO, the trustee or chairman of trust board shall exercise powers and discharge functions/duties of EO. It is nobody's case that before 2001, the chairman of trust board or trustee was paid out of CFS. The Act or the Rules nowhere provide for payment of remuneration or emoluments to chairman or member of board of trustees. If any such rule exists, the same is not brought to the notice of this Court. Insofar as trustee or chairman of trust board discharge functions of EO, the position even after amendment of Section 29(5)(d) remains the same. The disjunctive "or" between two parts of Section 29(5)(d) would show that authorization of Commissioner is required only when temple employee is asked to discharge duties as EO. In other words, change introduced in Section 29(5)(d) of the Act is empowering Commissioner to authorize any employee of a temple, to be person-in-management of any temple. If Section 29(5)(d) of the Act is not read as analysed herein and interpreted as if empowering Commissioner to authorize chairman of trust board or the trustee also, it would again result in very absurd situation. In such an event, it can always be argued that the Commissioner can even ask trustee or chairman of trust board of one temple to discharge the functions of EO of another temple. That would be plainly illegal because trust board is appointed or a trustee is recognized only in respect of one temple and one board of trustees appointed for one temple can never be asked to manage another temple. Accepting this situation, when chairman or trust board or the trustee is not paid any salaries or remuneration for discharging function of EO, a temple employee authorized to act as EO cannot claim salary payment out of CFS. Even after such authorization, salary of temple employee has to be paid only out of temple funds and not CFS.

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.

Assuming that there was no specific power conferred on trustee or trust board to suspend temple employee or temple employee acting as PIM, whether recourse can be had to Section 37 of the Act? Section 37 absolutely confers powers on trustee to impose fine or pass order of suspension, removal, dismissal or any other penalty for breach of trust, misappropriation, disobedience of the orders, misconduct etc. The said provision does not specifically provide for "suspension pending enquiry" but still power to suspend as a punishment also includes power to suspend pending enquiry into grave misconduct. This position is well settled. In Tappers Co-operative Society v. Superintendent of Excise 1984(2) A.P.L.J. 1 (FB), majority of Full Bench of this Court considering the question, held:

54. A situation might arise where in any of the group temples, trust board is not constituted. In ordinary course, the chairman of trust board can discharge the functions of EO. When a trust board is not constituted and only a temple employee is authorized to discharge the functions of EO, the question would come up as to whether Assistant Commissioner or Commissioner can suspend PIM. This is one area which is not provided for under Disciplinary Rules or Section 38 of the Act. In such a situation, Section 8 of the Act or Rule 6 of Disciplinary Rules may be relied on for suspending PIM. But, wherever a trustee or trust board is available either in the parent temple or temple where PIM is working, necessarily the order of suspension has to be passed only by the trustee and the Commissioner cannot pass an order of suspension.