IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdictiohr TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26638 OF 2018 'M-r* Between; P. Hari, S/o Late P. Ramdas Aged about 50 years, Occ- Service at Gandi Kshetram, R/o. Marallamadaka Village, Chakraipeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh 516 259 YSR KADAPA ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue(Endowments-lll) Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh GUNTUR 2. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Board, (T.T.D) Or Rep. by its Chairman,Tirupathi, Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Dy. Executive Officer(OST) Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Tirupathi, The Dy. Executive Officer(OST) Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Tirupathi, Chittoor District, A.P. 4. The Asst. Executive Officer(OST) Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, The Asst. Executive Officer(OST) Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Kadapa, Kadapa District, A.P. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.560, Revenue (Endowments-Ill) pi Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh dt.18.05.2016 in so far as cjfioying the past service and other benefits and modifying-the orders dt.16.11.2012 by the 3'^^ respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination in nature and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to count the past service including monetary benefits and other benefits to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Sri A.Prabhakar Sarma, Standing Counsel The Court made the following: > APHC010559802018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 2663872018 Between: P. Hari, ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.A PRABHAKAR SARMA SC FOR TTD 2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "... to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.560 Revenue Endowments-III Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh dt. 18.05.2016 in so far as denying the past service and other benefits of the petitioner and modifying the orders dt.l6.11.2012 by the 3'"^ respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination in nature and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently, direct the respondents to count the past service including monetary benefits and other benefits to the petitioner in the interest of justice." 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: i) Initially, the Writ Petitioner joined as Labour in May, 1998 in Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, Gandi Kshetram, Chakrayapet mandal, Kadapa District under the control of respondent No.l. The said temple was taken over by 2 the 3'^ Respondent/TTD and the petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in^ the same temple vide Proceedings dated 02.01.2004, issued by respondent N0.3-TTD. ii) After taking over the temple by TTD, the petitioner was assigned to work of selling of Laddus in the temple and he has to deposit the sale amount directly to the current account owned by the respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 also conducts Annadanam programme on every Saturday and for the said purpose, the petitioner has to withdraw required amount from specified account after getting sanction from respondent No.3. iii) The Respondent No.3 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to meet the expenditure for Annadanam programme which is being adjusted every month under the supervision of hierarchy. The Management of the temple orally instructed petitioner to spend the laddu amounts for Annadanam programme. iv) Respondent No.3 issued a Charge Memo dated 13.01.2011 to the Petitioner alleging that he sold 4000 laddus in two spells and failed to remit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to TTD account and misappropriated the said amount. The petitioner remitted the said amount after a long gap of nearly two months that too, after noticing and recording the said discrepancy in laddu stock register maintained by respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 issued a charge-memo to the petitioner and he submitted his explanation along with deposit slips. v) A common enquiry was conducted and vide Proceedings dated 17.08.2011, the petitioner was removed from service. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. On 07.08.2012, the sub- 3 0 committee on appeals recommended the TTD Board to reinstate the petitioner afresh. On 20.08.2012, TTD Board approved the said recommendation and resolved as follows: In pursuance of the said resolution of the TTD Board, Sri P.Hari, Record Assistant fwho is not a regular employee in TTD) is reinstated to duty afresh. His previous service will not be counted for any purpose including monetary benefits. Further ordered that, he shall not be posted at Gandi Temple. His services shall be utilized as per the terms and conditions stipulated for the staff working in other taken over temples of TTD whose services are still not absorbed. vi) Accordingly, proceedings dated 01.09.2012 were issued by the Executive Officer of TTD. On 29.11.2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1^ respondent challenging the resolution passed by the TTD Board. The said appeal was dismissed vide impugned proceedings dated 18.05.2016 and denied to count his past service and other benefits. Challenging the proceedings dated 18.05.2016 issued by 1^*^ respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri A.Prabhakar Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for TTD appearing for respondents. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that right from 1998, the petitioner served in respondent No.3-temple. On frivolous allegations, he was arbitrarily removed from service and without any fault on his part. The petitioner was appointed in 2012 afresh, which is not tenable in the eye of law. Learned counsel would submit that respondent authorities ought to have seen that the 4 alleged misappropriation could not have been that the authorities are supposed to other personnel who done by one individual alone ahd reveal what action was taken against the Learned counsel writ petition, the petitioner is aged service and that reinstating the petitioner is also responsible for the said offence, would submit that by the date of filing the about 50 years and he is having short into service afresh is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel the contents of the counter affidavit filed Petitioner was kept in-charge for sale of Laddus and he for TTD while reiterating by them, would submit that the sold 4000 laddus the remittance challans amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- but failed to produce affixed challans for the nor same. Further, the petitioner is well acquainted with the rules and procedure of the temple but he failed to remit the amount to the amount for his personal gains. Learned his explanation, the petitioner on Appeals modified the temple account and he utilised the counsel would submit that dissatisfied with removed from service. However, the Sub-Committee punishment of removal to that of was reinstating him afresh. Further, aggrieved by the order of the ITD Board dated 01.09.2012, the petitioner preferred and the Government v/cfe i appeal impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming the resolution of the Board reinstating him afresh. Learned committed dereliction of duty which resulted in serious lapse of temporary misappropriation of Rs.l,00,000/- to the Temple. During pendency of this counsel would submit that the petitioner writ petition. Petitioner retired from service on 5 30.06.2020. Learned counsel submits that there are no merits in the case of the -• 11 Petitioner and the writ petition deserves dismissal. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material on record, it is not in dispute that Petitioner was entrusted to the work of soiling TTD - Laddus in the temple. He sold Laddus in two spells i.e., in the first spell he sold 2000 laddus from 16.10.2010 to 19.10.2010 invoice dated 08.10.2010 and in the second spell, from 16.10.2010 to 19.10.2010, he sold 2000 laddus vide Invoice dated 15.10.2010. The petitioner is obligated to deposit the total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the TTD, but he failed to do so. After long gap of two months, he remitted the amount to the temple. Article of charge was framed against the petitioner and he was removed from service. Further, the petitioner did not obtain prior permission from the TTD to spend the laddu sale amount for the purpose of Annadanam. The Sub-committee of appeals, considered the appeal of the Petitioner and recommended the Board to reinstate him into service afresh and accordingly, he was reinstated into service afresh. Dissatisfied with the same, petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government and the same was dismissed vide impugned order. 7. Material on record reveals that opportunity of personal hearing was given to the Petitioner. No doubt, petitioner did not discharge his duty according to the procedure of the temple and further, he violated the same. The Executive Officer of the TTD, after careful consideration of the matter and the resolution of the sub-committee of appeals, issued proceedings dated 01.09.2012 reinstating the petitioner into service afresh.. The Government rejected the appeal of the 6 petitioner vide impugned Proceedings dated 18.05.2016. Since it is a case of ^ misappropriation of funds belonging to the Temple and the same was also proved in the enquiry, the petitioner is not entitled for any consideration. 8. Viewed from any angle, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Proceedings passed by the respondent No.l, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present Writ Petition deserves dismissal. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA Advocate 1. One CC to [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Sri A.Prabhakar Sarma. Standing Counsel[OPUC] GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) .High Court Of Andhra 3. Two CCs to Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies ksr N •i fi. HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.26638 of 2018 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS