APHC010598602023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 538 OF 2023 Appeal Under Section 51(4) of AP Charitable of Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, against the orders in proceedings in RC No. DP1/19027(37)/8/2018 dt.24-11-2023 passed by the Dharmika Parishad, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh removing the Appellant herein from the post of the Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi. Between: Arjun Dass, disciple of H.H. Shri Devenderdassji Varu, Aged about 66 years, Mahant of Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt, R/o. 122, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh ...Appellant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts.ll) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Dharmika Parishad, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-ll, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, R/o. 122, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Fit Person Sri Omprakash Doss, Disciple of H H Shri Devendradasji Varu, Aged about 29 Years, Interim Mahanth of Sri Swami Hathiramji mutt, Tirupati, R/o. Sri Swami Hathiramji Mutt, Besides Sri Lord Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Tirumala, Tirupati District. (Respondent No.6 is Impleaded as per Court order Date. 15.10.2024 in IA.No.4/2024) 6. ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings in Rc.No.DP1/19027(37)78/2018 dt.24.11.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the CMA lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/Appellant to amend prayer in CMA No.538/2023 as follows: It is therefore necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the orders dt.24-11-2023 passed by the Dharmika parishad. Endowments Department, Andhra pradesh from the post of Mahant of Sri SwamyHathiramji Mutt, Tirupati and also to set aside G.O.ms.no.581 Revenue (Endowments. II Department dt. 08-12-2023 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Instead of It is therefore the interest of justice that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in Rc.No. DP1/19027(37)/8/2018 dt. 24-11-2023 passed by the removing me necessary in ini. s.f /; ' 2nd respondent Dharmika Parishad Endowments Department Andhra Pradesh removing the Appellant herein from the post of the Mahant of Sri Swamy hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi the appellant begs to submit the present Appeal under Sec 513 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act 1987 Andhra Pradesh Act No. 30 of 1987 and pending disposal of the CMA lA NO: 4 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend G.O.Ms.no.581 Revenue (Endowments-ll) Department dt.08-12- 2023,pending disposal of the CMA lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/Appellant to amend prayer in CMA No.538/2023 as It is therefore necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the orders dt.24-11- 2023 passed by the Dharmika Parishad, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh removing me from the post of Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi and also to Department bearing Rc.No.25033/37/2022/DP-CELL-Endowments Dt. 19.01.2024 issued by the Dharmika Parishad pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case” and pass follows: set aside G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue (Endowments.il) dt.08.12.2023 and the consequential proceedings lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the proceedings bearing Rc. No. 'A 25033/37/2022/DPI-CELL-Enclowments Dt. 19-01-2024 issued by Dharmika Parishad, pending disposal of the CMA. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Srinivas Bobbili Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri B S Shivaji Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : SrIJ Dileep Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Sri T V S Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : Sri V Surya Kiran Kumar The Court made the following Judgment: ./A; A APHC010598602023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) I [3311] Friday, the ninth day of May two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.538 of 2023 Between: Arjun Dass ...Appellant and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the appellant; ...Respondents I.Srinivas Bobbili Counsel for the respondents: 1. V. Surya Kiran Kumar 2. J. Dileep Kumar 3. B. S. Shivaji 4. T.V.S. Kumar The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 JUDGMENT; This appeal was filed by the appellant, Arjun Dass, under Section 51(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1987”) aggrieved by order in proceedings in Rc. No.DP1/19027(37)/8/2018 , dated 24.11.2023, passed by the Dharmika Parishad, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh removing the appellant from the post of Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi (hereinafter referred as "the Mutt"). The case of the appellant, mainly stated, is as follows: The appellant came to the Mutt in the year 1970 and dedicated himself to the service of the Mutt. He was appointed as Pujari in the year 1975, as Adhikari in the year 1985 and as interim Mahant in the year 1990. He was appointed as permanent Mahant in the year 2000, vide orders, dated 06.07.2000, issued by the Commissioner of Endowments. 2. a. Before appointing him as the permanent Mahant, the endowments department consulted Akhil Bharatiya Sri Panch Digambar Ani Akhada, Nasik (hereinafter referred to as the "Akhada Panchayat") which is the apex organization consisting Hindu sants, sadhus & mahants. In the meeting held on 01.11.1999, the Akhada Panchayat confirmed that the appellant is the only surviving disciple of Sri Devender Dassji, the then Mahant of the Mutt, and declared the appellant as qualified and eligible to be appointed as permanent Mahant of the Mutt. On 08.10.2000, the Akhada Panchayat met and declared the appellant as the 21®* Mahant of the Mutt. b. c 3 ■ - BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 While so, as the government officers who are in-charge of the Mutt properties are misappropriating the same, the appellant filed W.P.No.4326 of 2002 to direct the endowments department to handover the affairs of the Mutt to him. During the pendency of the writ petition, the endowments department, by order, dated 10.07.2003, cancelled the orders, dated 06.07.2000. Aggrieved by the cancellation order, he filed This Court, by order, dated 27.01.2006, allowed both the writ petitions by setting aside the orders, dated 10.07.2003, and directed the respondents to handover the management of the secular affairs of the Mutt to the appellant. c. W.P.No.14856 of 2003. Challenging the order, dated 27.01.2006, the endowments department filed W.A.Nos.258 & 259 of 2006. By judgment, dated 07.09.2006, the Division Bench of this Court directed the endowments department to handover the secular affairs of the Mutt to the appellant while directing him not to dispose of any property of the Mutt. The operative portion of the interim order reads as follows: d. “From what we have observed above, it is reasonable to infer that if the property continues to remain in the hands of the officers of the Government, there is every . possibility of the remaining land and properties being frittered away and by the time the appeal is decided, nothing would be left. In the premise aforesaid, we allow the application and vacate ad interim order, dt. 13.03.2006. However, it is made dear that the person(s) who will be put in possession of the properties of the Mutt and will become entitled to manage its affairs shall not be entitled to dispose of any property of the Mutt by public auction or A BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 by negotiations or by private settlement or in any other manner v\/hatsoever." Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.1678, e. Revenue (Endowments. 11/1) Department, dt. 14.11.2006 was issued directing the Commissioner of Endowments to handover the management of secular affairs of the Mutt to the appellant and accordingly, the affairs of the Mutt were handed over to the appellant. The appellant protected the interests and properties of the Mutt and got evicted so many encroachments in the lands of the Mutt. As the appellant did not yield to the illegal demands of some employees of the Mutt and land grabbers, they made false allegations against the appellant. f. Therefore, the endowments department issued orders, dated 28.12.2017, to conduct enquiry into those allegations published in Mayavi newspaper against the appellant. The respondent / State, by memo dated 02.01.2018, directed the Endowments Commissioner to examine the representations, dated 14.12.2017 and 20.12.2017 and furnish a detailed report. Challenging the proceedings, dated 28.12.2017 and 02.01.2018, the appellant filed W.P.No.9716 of 2018. This Court, by order, dated 03.04.2018, suspended these proceedings. The order, dated 03.04.2018, reads as follows: "Since only Dharmika Parishad constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 has jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings leading to removal of Mathadhipathi, like the petitioner, and the 2^^ respondent has no jurisdiction to do so, there shall be interim direction as prayed for." S BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 During the subsistence of these interim orders, the commissioner suspended the appellant from the office of the Mahant by framing 24 false and baseless charges, by order, dated 28.01.2020. The appellant filed W.P.No.2391 of 2020 challenging the suspension order. This Court directed that the appellant be continued as Matadhipathi. During the pendency of W.P. No.2391 of 2020, the endowments department issued order, dated 24.12.2021, for appointment of a Screening Committee to look after the day-to-day affairs of the Mutt. Thereafter, this Court allowed W.P.No.2391 of 2020 on 13.04.2023, by setting aside the suspension order, dated 28.01.2020. g- Later, the endowments department issued order, dated 08.06.2023, framing sixteen (16) charges against the appellant and on the same day, the appellant was suspended and a Fit Person was appointed in his place. h. f 1 While so, during the subsistence of interim orders, dated 07.09.2006 in W.A.Nos.258 & 259 of 2006 and interim order, dated 03.04.2018, in W.P.No.9716 of 2018, the Dharmika Parishad, without seeking modification of the said interim orders and without issuing any notice to the appellant, suspended him and handed over the religious and secular affairs of the Mutt to the Fit Person. I. Aggrieved by order, dated 08.06.2023, the appellant filed W.P.No.13919 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by order, dated 04.10.2023. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.A.No.1080 of 2023 and by the time the appellant was removed from the office of the Mahant, the writ appeal is pending. While so, in the first week of June, 2023, i.e., on 08.06.2023, the endowments department seized the office of the Mutt and Mahant's J- I k k. ■ i •i BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 residence. During the pendency of W.P.No.13919 of 2023 and in pursuance of the charge memo, dated 08.06.2023, the Dharmika Parishad issued notice, dated 14.07.2023, through WhatsApp, directing the appellant to appear before the Three-Member Committee, which will conduct enquiry on 19.07.2023 at Tirupathi. The appellant got issued a legal notice, dated 17.07.2023, to the respondents informing the Dharmika Parishad that (i) W.P.No.13919 of 2023 is pending; (ii) as Mahant who is aged about 67 years was thrown out of the Mutt unceremoniously by seizing his office and residence, he went to Ayodhya whereat he fell ill due to viral fever; (iii) entire record seized; (iv) none of the documents which are the basis for issuing the said charge memo was furnished to him; and requesting the respondents to furnish all the documents, grant one month time to submit his defence and till such time, defer the enquiry. I. Having received the legal notice, the respondents, without furnishing the documents or giving opportunity, conducted an enquiry on 19.07.2023. The appellant got issued another legal notice, dated 24.07.2023, requesting the respondents to furnish all the documents and grant one month time to submit his statement of defence. But, the Three-Member Committee, without hearing the appellant or considering the request of the appellant to grant time, concluded the enquiry on 19.07.2023 and submitted report on 01.08.2023. Thereafter, the Dharmika Parishad issued a show cause notice, dated 19.10.2023, directing the appellant to submit explanation. The appellant submitted an explanation, dated 03.11.2023, and attended the enquiry on 16.11.2023 and requested to conduct enquiry afresh after supplying the documents. However, without considering the request of the appellant or furnishing the documents, the Dharmika Parishad removed the was 7 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of2023 appellant (Mahant) from the office of the Mutt by the order, dated 24.11.2023, the operative portion of which reads as follows: "In view of the above, the Dharmika Parishad is hereby ordered for removal of Sri Arjun Doss U/s 51(2) of the Act 30/87 from the post of the Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math, Tiruapthi with immediate effect subject to outcome of W.A.No. 1080 of 2023 pending on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P and further order that the Fit-person of the Math who is appointed by the Dharmika Parishad and looking after administration / management of the Math is ordered to continue until further orders. Sri Arjun Doss is hereby directed to handover the complete charge of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math, Tirupathi and its movable and immovable properties including records, valuables etc., to the Fit-person of the said Math immediately. The Fit-person of the subject Math is hereby directed to take complete charge of the subject Math and its properties from Sri Arjun Doss and submit report to the undersigned." m. After filing of the appeal, without issuing notice or hearing the appellant, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.581, Revenue (Endowments-ll) Department, dated 08.12.2023, confirming the removal order, and thereafter, the Dharmika Parishad issued the consequential order, dated 19.01.2024. 8 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 The appeal was preferred mainly on the following grounds:- a. The impugned order nd was passed by the 2 violation of the principles of natural i respondent in justice, such as, no man in violation of Section 51(2) should be condemned unheard and of the Act, 1987; b. The 2"^^ respondent failed to consider, while passing the impugned order, the fact that none of the documents which the basis of the charges though he requested the 2 are were furnished to the appellant, respondent several times to furnish them, in writing also such as legal notices sent to the Official e-mail IDs of the 2 nd nd respondent and all the authorities concerned on 17.07.2023, 24.07.2023, and 31.07.2023; c. The 2"“ respondent failed to consider the appellant was thrown unceremoniously even without allowing him to was not in a position to submit record to prove his innocence and to refute the charges; respondent failed to consider the submitted by the appellant on 03.11.2023, and 06.11.2023 i:: proper perspective; Though the appeal in W.A.No.1080 of 2023 filed against the order in W.P.No.13919 of 2023 is pending, the 2"^ respondent conducted enquiry into the charges and order; out of the Mutt take his cloths and so he any nd d. The 2 explanation in e. passed the impugned f. The impugned order is in contravention of the subsisting interim order, dated 07.09.2006 in W.A.No.258 of 2008; The impugned order is violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21,25 and 26 of the Constitution 9- of India. 9 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538of2023 The 2^^ respondent / Member Secretary, A.P. Dharmika Parishad filed counter affidavit with the following averments mainly stating as follows: 5. The appeal is not maintainable either on facts or in law. As many as sixteen (16) charges were framed against the appellant basing on the records available calling him to submit his explanation within 15 days. On considering the gravity of the charges, in the interest of public and to protect the holiness of Mutt and its properties, the appellant was placed under suspension pending enquiry, vide proceeding, dated 08.06.2023. The appellant neither submitted his explanation to the charges within the stipulated period nor sought further time. He filed W.P.No.13919 of 2023 challenging the charge memo, order of suspension and appointment of Fit Person temporarily to look after the secular affairs of the Mutt till consideration of claims of disciples, if any, of the Mutt. No interim order was granted in the writ petition. The A.P. Dharmika Parishad appointed its three members as a committee and ordered to conduct enquiry against the appellant on the charges and to submit a report. The Three Member Committee submitted enquiry report to the A.P.Dharmika Parishad on 01.08.2023 stating that all the sixteen (16) charges had been proved. In pursuance of the resolution of the A.P. Dharmika Parishad, dated 12.09.2023, a show cause notice, dated 19.10.2023, was issued to the appellant enclosing a copy of the enquiry report calling upon him to submit explanation within 15 days. The appellant submitted his representation through an advocate and in person to the 2 respectively. After examination of his explanation and in the light of the material record, a final opportunity was given to him to submit his version, if any, to the enquiry report on 16.11.2023. Accordingly, the a. nd respondent on 03.11.2023 and 06.11.2023 10 BSB, J C.M,A.No.538 of 2023 appellant appeared before the Dharmika Parishad on 16.11.2023 along with two advocates and orally submitted that he is innocent and to conduct enquiry afresh after supplying all the documents. On an earlier occasion, the appellant filed W.P.No.2391 of 2020 challenging the order of suspension pending enquiry against him. The said writ petition was disposed of. on 13.04.2023 holding as under: r b. "The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order vide Rc. No.DPI/19027 (37)/8/2018-2, dt.28.01.2020 passed , by the 3rd respondent / Commissioner is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Dharmika Parishad to proceed and to take action in accordance with law, if it is advised to do so. Till the action / decision is taken by the Dharmika Parishad, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Mahanth of the Sri Swamy Hathiramji Math." Thereafter, as already stated, W.P.No.13919 of 2023 filed by the appellant was dismissed, by order, dated 04.10.2023. The appellant was given ample opportunity by the Dharmika Parishad at every stage of the enquiry, however, he failed to avail the opportunity. Further, by order, dated 24.11.2023, the appellant was removed. On considering the gravity of the charges proved, in the interest of public and to protect the holiness of the Mutt and its properties, the appellant was removed as he violated the code of conduct of the Mutt parampara, acted against the tenets, traditions and customs of the Mutt and also misappropriated the funds and properties of the Mutt to a large extent. The C.I.D., A.P. submitted a report to the government vide letter, dated 25.07.2018, stating that it was established that the appellant committed several c. 11 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538of 2023 irregularities for his personal interest by disobeying the government and this Court's orders and allowed third parties to encroach the properties of the Mutt worth hundreds of crores of rupees. As per the resolution of the Dharmika Parishad, the Fit Person of the Mutt was authorized to conduct drone survey of the entire lands in order to take steps for getting back the lands. As such, the removal of the appellant mandated. Thus, there is no prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the appellant and further, no irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant on account of the order under appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. was The respondent No.6 also filed counter affidavit stating that there is no prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury on account of the orders under appeal. The appellant was removed from the office and the said order has already been given effect, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appellant filed reply to the submissions of the respondents contending as follows: The respondents did not send the charge memo and the relevant documents through registered post acknowledgement due. The respondents did not publish any notice in newspapers directing the appellant to receive the charge memo and the documents. Thus, it is clear that the charge memo and 29 documents which are the basis for the charges were not served on the appellant at the initial stage or along with their counter filed in W.P.No.13919of 2023. As such, the so-called enquiry and the orders impugned in the appeal are liable to be set aside as they are against the principles of natural justice. All the proceedings culminating in the removal order are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. 6. 7. a. / 12 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 The charges framed against the appellant are not only false but also contrary to the record. Though the appellant has been requesting throughout for supply of documents, the respondents did not furnish the same. Even without supply of the documents, the appellant submitted explanation. For all the above reasons, the appeal is liable to be allowed. b. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. The main grievance of the appellant is that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing and furnished the documents which were the basis of the charges. In this regard, the appellant stated that he was highhandedly kept out of the Mutt by seizing the office of the Mutt in the first week of June, 2023 when he was on his pilgrimage and that the panchanama report, dated 09.06.2023, and the photographs, dated 08.06.2023 and 09.06.2023 filed by the respondents in this appeal clearly show that it is only fit person’s appointment order alone was affixed to the door of the appellant’s residence and that voluminous documents of 27 pages of charge memo are supporting 29 documents which may be around 600 pages were not at all affixed to the door, and therefore, it is evident that the documents were not served on the appellant, though the respondents contend that the charge memo and the documents were duly served on the appellant as indicated in the panchanama and the photographs. 8. 9. 8. 9. On the other hand, the respondents contended that apart from the report of panchanama and the photographs, it is to be noticed that the appellant was supplied with all the necessary documents relating to the charges and the supporting documents in W.P.No.13919 of 2023 which was filed challenging the charges framed against the appellant and therefore, it is a frivolous contention raised by the appellant just to take 10. 13 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538of 2023 % ■ a stand challenging the impugned order on ground of not giving him proper hearing, opportunity or observing principles of natural justice matter of disciplinary action. in In response thereto, there was no denial by the appellant of receiving such material in the previous writ petition. The respondents filed e-mail correspondence to his office communicating to the appellant the charge memo along with annexures. That apart, the way in which the appellant answered each charge with reference to the supporting documents, in minute details, clearly indicate that the appellant served with the supporting documents in addition to the charge memo. Or else, it is highly impossible to answer the charges the which the appellant answered. Therefore, it is obvious that, though there may not be supply of the documents to the appellant by affixture on the door, he was given all the material documents before he submitted his explanation to the charges, though not in reply to the request made by him. Service of copies of the documents relied by the disciplinary authority in support of charge(s) is to make a charged person to be aware of the charge and the basis so as to enable such person to duly, completely and effectively answer the charge. Therefore, the true intent of framing of charges, serving the charge memo and documents In support of the charges was complied in the present Therefore, the appellant cannot contend that principles of natural justice were not duly followed in this regard. It was also contended that the appellant was not given proper opportunity of hearing. He was represented duly before the 2 respondent. Moreover, all through, he had legal advice and filed writ petitions. It is not a case as though he was left with no legal support. For these reasons, the appellant cannot contend that he was not given 11. was manner in case. 12. nd I ' i 14 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of2023 r.' proper opportunity before passing the impugned order. The order passed by the 2 respondent answering all the submissions made by the appellant indicates that opportunity was given to the appellant and therefore, he could make his submissions and give explanation for every charge, that too, with reference to the documents relied support of the charges. The next important grievance is that the explanation submitted by him was not properly appreciated with reference to each charge. The charge No.1 relates to sale of property under an agreement of sale, dated 23.03.2009, to sell away Ac.53.27 cents in Avilala village of the Mutt to M/s. Billiards Farms Private Limited for Rs.16 Crores without obtaining prior permission from the government under Section 80 of the Act 1987 through the Commissioner of Endowments. The appellant contends that it is only an agreement of sale but not a sale whereby, the title would not pass and no loss was caused to the Mutt, whereas the amount was received by the Mutt and it was to pay income tax dues and moreover. Mutt filed W.A.M.P.No.2797 of 2009 in W.A.No.258 of 2006 to modify the order, dated 07.09.2006, in W.A.V.M.P.No.1535 of 2006 in W.A.No.258 of 2006 to permit the Mutt to give effect to the sale, wherein the respondent / State filed counter affidavit in September, 2009 supporting the stand of the Mutt basing on which the High Court passed the order, dated 17.11.2009, modifying the interim order, dated 07.09.2006, granting liberty to the 1®‘ respondent to pass appropriate order under Section 80 with regard to the alienation in terms of the agreement of sale, dated 23.03.2009, and subsequently, the Mutt terminated the agreement issuing termination notice, dated 15.07.2013, forfeiting the advance amount of one Crore rupees to the credit of the Mutt as the intended purchaser could not on in 13. 14. 15 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of2023 secure the necessary permission under Section 80 of the Act, 1987. Therefore, the appellant contended that the respondents cannot take a “U” turn now and frame a false charge and suspend him after lapse of fifteen (15) years from the date of the agreement. Even then, in the impugned order, the charge No.1 was held to be proved for want of prior permission from the government under Section 80 of the Act, 1987. 15. The finding on charge No.1 is not sound as no sale finally took place and the proposed sale through agreement of sale was under consideration before the High Court and ultimately, the proposed sale was cancelled by forfeiting the advance amount of sale and moreover, the State had not opposed the proposed sale when it was the subject matter of the interim application seeking permission by modifying the earlier order imposing restriction on the alienation of the property of the Mutt. Without considering the background of alienation and the subsequent events and without any discussion of the same, just with the observation that prior permission was not obtained, the charge was held to be proved. Therefore, the finding is devoid of reason duly considering the explanation. If the explanation is not worthy of acceptance, the 2"'^ respondent could have assigned reasons to that effect. Want of reason does not reflect the mind of the authority passing the order. And, on the other hand, it seems that reasons could not be assigned to overcome the explanation to arrive at the conclusion. The charge No.2 relates to acquisition of Ac.6.00 cents of land under document No.8/9252, dated 10.12.2009 in the name of the 16. appellant in the state of Madhya Pradesh by spending the fund of the Mutt. It was regarded as misappropriation of the funds of the Mutt in violation of Section 51 (1) (g) of the Act, 1987. The appellant explained that some of the devotees of the Mutt donated the land for construction 16 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538of 2023 of the temple and the devotees were not willing to hand over the land or the temple to the Endowments department of Andhra Pradesh and that an M.O.U., dated 06.08.2009, was also executed mentioning that the land is used for any other purpose, the sale deed would be cancelled. It was also explained that as per the mandate of Section 50 of the Act, 1987, even if any property is in the name of the appellant, after his demise, it will vest in the Mutt and it would not be succeeded by any person as the appellant has no family to succeed the same, regard, he further explained that almost all the properties acquired by the successive mahants were registered in the name of mahant and after the demise of mahant, all such properties vested in the Mutt. On the ground that a false charge was framed after a lapse of fourteen years, the 2""' respondent did not accept the explanation and the charge was held to be proved. In this Though the appellant indicated the false practice of getting the document in the name of the mahant, no such details were given. Irrespective of practice, law shall be followed, unless an established practice is recognized by law. 17. 50. Padakanukas and other gifts . Mathadhipathi shall maintain regular accounts of receipts of padakanukas or other personal gifts of property made to him as the head of the Math and he shall be entitled to spend, at hisdiscretion for any purpose which is connected with the objects of the math and propagation of Hindu Dharma. (2) Any padakanuka or other personal gift which remains undisposed of during the life time of the mathadhipathi shall devolve on the math as its asset. (1) The 17 (3) In the case of gifts of property or money made to the mathadhipathi not as personal gifts but as gifts intended for the benefit of the math, the mathadhipathi, shall keep accounts of all receipts and disbursements of such gifts and shall cause such accounts to be produced before the Commissioner or any person authorised by him in this behalf whenever so required. Explanation:- Any gift of property or money made to the Mathadhipathi shall, unless it is specified by the donor as padakanuka or personal gift, be presumed to be gift intended for the benefit of the math. N 18. Of course, as per Section 50 of the Act, 1987, personal gifts be accepted by the head of the Mutt, but the procedure contemplated thereunder shall be scrupulously followed. The explanation of the appellant does not fall in line with Section 50 of the Act, 1987. Moreover, another charge was framed that the appellant suppressed material information regarding his family members. In the light of such allegations, unless Section 50 is strictly followed, there is an element of conduct, which is susceptible to disciplinary action. can 19. Similar to the charge No.2, charge No.3 relates to misappropriation of the fund of the Mutt for depositing funds of the subject Mutt to the tune of Rs.16 lakhs in fixed deposits in the account in the name of the appellant and also for having savings bank account in his own name. The appellant explained that whatever money received as ‘padakanukas’ was being deposited in the bank accounts and he was maintaining detailed accounts as per the mandate of Section 50 of the Act, 1987 and that he had never misappropriated any money of the Mutt and that he was spending the same for the activities 18 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538of 2023 . d of the Mutt only. The charge was framed more than seven years from the date of the said sale agreement. The explanation was rejected the statement of accounts were not submitted and as the fixed deposits were made on 28.12.2016 during the period when demonetization effected in the country and there were no deposits of ‘padakanukas’ either before or after such date. Thus, the charge was held proved misconduct is attracting, Section 51(1)(e) of the Act. 1987. The appellant could not duly answer the reasons assigned in the impugned order in holding the charge No.3 as proved. In addition to that, for the reasons discussed above as in charge No.2, the finding in charge No.3 holds good. r as was as 20. The charge No.4 relates to the allegation that the appellant admitted in his application vide letter dated 07.01.1981, addressed to the then custodian that he had wife, Smt. Ramavathi, and blessed with a son, by name, Sri Boludoss, which was reflected in his voter identity card. The appellant contended that the charge is false and baseless and contrary to the record, since in the letter, dated 07.01.1981, he stated - “I, Arjun Doss (Adityanath Mishra) S/o Sri Loknath Mishra)” and he never stated that he had wife and son. He further contended that the voter identity card was fabricated. He affirmed that he is a celibate and has no children. Regarding Boludoss, he explained that the original name of Boludoss is Diwakar and his father is Tarachandra as is evident from his Aadhar Card bearing No.4386 3531 5613 and that the residents of Mutt treat their guru as their father and the same is recorded in the documents, and therefore, it is not only for Boludoss, but it was similarly recorded in case of Krishna Swamy who is working as pujari in the Mutt and therefore, the hospital record also registered the name of the appellant as the name of the father of Boludoss. And 19 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538of2023 Mv '2^ j? moreover, the appellant is not a party to the hospital record. It was further explained that the appellant was appointed as Adhikari in 1985 by the Mahant and in the year 1990, as Mahant knowing all the true facts. But, without having regard to all such facts, a false charge was made after lapse of more than 42 years from the letter, dated 07.01.1981. Without assigning any reasons to the explanation offered, merely by reiterating the charge with reference to the documents relied by the 2"" respondent, the charge was held to be proved. This approach is reproachable and not sustainable. The charge No.5 is an allegation that the appellant developed unknown relationship with Smt. Hema Maheshwari and entered into a memorandum of understanding with her on 04.12.2007. The appellant refuted the charge of relationship and described the M.O.U as a document fabricated by Arun Doss and Madhav Doss as the appellant transferred them from Tirumala to other places and that the appellant had submitted a detailed representation, dated 05.01.2018, to the 1 respondent. It was also contended that the false charge was framed after sixteen (16) years from the date of the MoU. In the impugned order, it was observed that the signature on the M.O.U and the signature on the cash book register of the Mutt for that period are similar even to the naked eye and that no action had been taken against Madhav Doss and Arun Doss since 2007 by the appellant but, no prudent person would keep silent for such long period. No tenable explanation has come from the appellant in this appeal regarding the observation of the 2"^^ respondent in the impugned order. The charge No.6 states that the appellant appointed ten (10) persons who are his family members in the Mutt service without any 21. St 22. 23. 20 BSB, J C.M,A.No.538of 2023 permission from the competent authority and is maintaining full relation with his family members. 24. The charge No.7 is that the appellant made 90 appointments from 2007 onwards without prior approval from the competent authority and without there being vacancy in the approved cadre strength. In respect of the charges No.6 & 7, the appellant offered the explanation that as per the custom of the Mutt, only North Indian Brahmins can be appointed as poojaris in the temples attached to the Mutt and those who are well versed with the rituals were appointed. He further stated that as he had no knowledge in English, whereas the entire correspondence is in English, he had taken the assistance of a retired employee, Mr. D.P. Mishra, and in fact, the appointments were made as per the necessity and the Commissioner permitted the Mahant to spend Rs.3 lakhs for contingent appointment(s) and all those appointments were approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, but an illegal charge was framed. 25. 26. Observing that no documentary evidence was produced about the approval by the Commissioner of Endowments and the allegation of appointing relatives was not denied by the appellant, the charge was held proved for violation of Section 35 of the Act, 1987 which mandates prior permission from the competent authority, besides the appointments made during the period of ban on recruitment vide G.O.Ms.No.1997, dated 18.10.2005. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.1997 was not in the charge framed. But, the observation cannot be upset since the appellant could not produce any evidence in support of his explanation. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of arguments, it was contended that the appellant was not given an opportunity of taking his belongings as the office of the Mutt was seized during the absence of 21 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 the appellant when he was on pilgrimage. These documents summoned, if available, but no such attempt was made. The charges No.8 & 9 are that the appellant had not taken action for appraisal of 247 and 145 gold ornaments by the concerned jewellery verification officer and that the details the concerned register. can be 27. any were not mentioned in 28. The appellant explained that the allegations are false and baseless and that in the year 2020 itself, he got appraised the value of the gold and silver articles of the Mutt by the Endowments Department, jewellery verification officer and it was recorded in the register concerned, but without verifying the record, the charge was framed. The impugned order stated that J.E.O., Endowments Department, Kurnool, in the report stated that several attempts were made from the year 2012 onwards to appraise the jewellery of the Mutt, but the appellant had not co-operated and on such report, the Commissioner issued order, dated 04.09.2020, for appraisal of the jewellery of the Mutt in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool and the appellant had not signed the appraisal register though the jewellery was appraised in his presence and moreover, the register was not maintained as required under Rule 2 of the Jewells or other Valuables and Documents Maintenance Rules and G.O.Ms.No.630, dated 30.06.1989. Therefore, these charges were held to be proved for violation of Section 51 (1 )(g) of the Act, 1987. 29. No explanation was offered in the appeal about the findings of the 2"*^ respondent in the impugned order on the charges No.8 & 9. 30. The charge No. 10 is that the appellant deliberately delayed the payment of increments / D.A. arrears / Surrender Leave Encashment / ■ ^ 22 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538of2023 a- P.R.C. fixation / Promotions to the regular staff to harass them and did not settle the terminal benefits to the retired regular staff. 31. The appellant offered explanation that no employee was harassed in the Mutt and that all the benefits were given as per the entitlement and that except A.B.Srinivasan, Madhav Doss, Arun Doss and Chengalrayalu, who were inimical with the appellant due to their vested interests, no other employee in the Mutt made any complaint against the appellant. 32. The charge was held to be proved for violating Section 51(1)(f) of the Act, 1987, observing that even as per the reply of the appellant, the fact remains that he had not paid service benefits to some of the employees in the Mutt. Animosity may be a reason for complaint but, the failure in discharging the duties in providing service as per the rules cannot be treated as acceptable conduct. 33. The charge No.11 is that the appellant failed to act in accordance with the common order, dated 03.06.2013, and allowed the defendant therein to convert agricultural land into house site in Sy.Nos.13,15, 17/2, 17/3 and 17/5 of Avilala village and committed default. 34. The appellant explained that challenging the judgment, dated 03.06.2013, some of the defendants filed I.A.No.1 of 2013 (S.A.M.P.No.2160 of 2013) to review the judgment and it was allowed by order, dated 02.07.2014, against which the Mutt filed S.L.P. No.30873 of 2014 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.11.2014, directing the High Court to consider the early hearing of the application, if any, filed. He further stated that the High Court allowed the second appeal, by judgment, dated 12.06.2018, and in the meanwhile, the authorities of the respondents permitted illegal 23 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of2023 constructions in the said land and issued electricity connections, allotted house numbers etc. The appellant stated that several attempts made by him to protect the land of the Mutt by submitting representations to government were in vain and the charge was made without verification of the record. The charge was held to be proved observing that the appellant had not admittedly taken any steps for removal of the encroachments, except saying that he had made representations to the government, which is not explained by furnishing the details of the alleged representations. In spite of such observation, while challenging the impugned order, the required details or the documents have been furnished by the appellant. 35. 36. 37. The charge No. 12 is that the appellant had not paid statutory liabilities payable under the Act, 1987 vide Section 65 (liability of the institution to pay annual contribution and audit fee). Section 70 (common good fund) and Sections 161 (Archakas and other employees welfare fund). The explanation of the appellant is that the Mutt has been paying the statutory payments as per the availability of the funds without any default. 38. 39. This charge was held to be proved observing that as per the records, the Mahant of the Mutt had not made statutory payments for several years and therefore, the reply to this charge is without any documentary support. The explanation of the appellant is general and not supported by any evidence. Inspite of the observation in the impugned order, no 40. ■ a I 24 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 proper evidence or details have been furnished along with the appeal or thereafter. 41. The charge No. 13 is that at the time of handing over charge of secular affairs of the Mutt and its properties in 2006, Mutt land of Ac.876.89 cents was under encroachment, whereas in his letter, dated 16.09.2014, he had informed that the land of the Mutt of Ac.1418.00 cents was under encroachment. 42. The appellant explained that in the year 2006, the respondents had informed the appellant that Ac.876.89 cents was under encroachment, but on verification, he had found that actually Ac.1418.00 cents was under encroachment and the same was reported to the Commissioner of Endowments by letter, dated 16.09.2014, besides several representations made to protect the land of the Mutt as the Mutt has no sufficient paraphernalia to protect the same. He further stated that all such encroachments were made when the Mutt was under the administration of the authorities of the government and not during the functioning of the appellant as Mahant and that by suspending the appellant, the authorities permitted large scale and open encroachment of Mutt land of Ac. 157.00 cents situated in Tummalagunta village of Chandragiri Mandal of Chittoor district, but no action is being taken in spite of wide reporting in the press. 43. The appellant lamented that instead of supporting him in the removal of encroachment, the respondents framed the charge after lapse of more than nine (9) years from the date of the said letter. Except reiterating the contents of the charge, no detailed discussion was made in the impugned order in the light of the explanation given by the appellant. This is a matter seriously to be 44. 25 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 followed till the truth is found out. It seems that there was no actual survey conducted at the time of taking charge of the properties of the Mutt by the appellant. According to the appellant, his further enquiries revealed larger encroachments and has been reported to the concerned authorities for necessary action. There is no enquiry held to find out whether the encroachment of the land to the extent of the difference from the time of taking charge as Mahant by the appellant to the date of reporting in the year 2014, was made during his tenure. Therefore, the finding of the 2'^^ respondent in the impugned order is baseless and not supported by valid reasons. The charge No. 14 is that the appellant submitted details of the landed property in Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh by his letter, dated 16.09.2014, but failed to submit proposals for extension of leases and he is responsible for not getting adequate rent from the Mutt properties. The appellant explained that the Mutt never violated requirements for granting leases and extending the same and that no loss was caused to the Mutt and moreover, the charge is vague and belated by nine (9) years from the date of the letter. The charge was held proved in the impugned order observing that the reply is general and that the appellant had not taken any steps for conducting pubic auction for lease / licence holding rights periodically and allowed the sitting tenants to continue the enjoyment of the properties of the Mutt even without getting the extension of the lease / licence renewed as per law and thus, he caused monetary loss to the Mutt and violated Section 51(1){f) of the Act, 1987. In spite of such observation, the appellant has not offered proper explanation challenging the finding of the 2 impugned order. 45. 46. any 47. 48. nd respondent in the j 26 BSB, J C.M.A.No.538of 2023 The charges No. 15 & 16 are that the appellant failed to depute concerned staff from the office of the Mutt along with the connected records to the office of the Commissioner to prepare counter of the Commissioner of Endowments and failed to file counters on behalf of the Mutt as well as vacate stay petitions. The appellant explained that the entire record of the Mutt is in the office of the Commissioner of Endowments and the Mutt made several representations to protect the Mutt land and as per the directions of the Commissioner of Endowments, Mutt has been sending its staff to the office of the Commissioner along with the connected records and at sometimes, the appellant himself went to the office of the Commissioner in person along with the Mutt staff and records. Though the appellant contended that the records of the Mutt are available in the office of the Commissioner of Endowment itself, the 2 respondent observed in the impugned order that the records are available at the institution itself and not in the office of the Commissioner and further that the records disclosed that in spite of intimation from the office of the Commissioner, no para-wise remarks along with the connected records had been submitted to the office of the commissioner to enable to file counter in writ petitions to protect the lands of the Mutt and thus the failure of the appellant in prompt reply lead to non-filing of the counters in some matters and it amounts to gross negligence and dereliction of the duty. 49. 50. 51. nd nd respondent observed that all the With such findings, the 2 charges relate to illegalities and irregularities committed by the appellant 52. while administering and managing the Mutt and its properties during 16.11.2006 to June 2023, and therefore, the Dharmika Parishad ordered for removal of the appellant from the post of the Mahant of the 27 BSBJ C.M.A.No.538 of 2023 subject Mutt with immediate effect subject to outcome of W.A.No.1080 of 2023. 53. In view of the foregoing discussion sustaining some of the major charges held proved, the final outcome of the impugned order cannot be set aside. 54. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT.REGI^AR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. The Dharmika Parishad, Endowments Department Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 2. One CC to Sri Srinivas Bobbili, Advocate 3. One CC to Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar 4. One CC to Sri J. Dileep Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri B.S. Shivaji, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri T.V.S. Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC] Stu sree ■; i ■ 1 • ^ ■ ' f HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 JUDGMENT CMA NO. 538 OF 2023 dismissing the C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS 4 f i «