APHC010065432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3687/2025 Between: N.somasekhar, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHARAT BABU.N Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAGARAJU NAGURU 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….. to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus (i) To declare the Proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.A2/58/2024, dated 28.10.2024 where under the petitioner was placed under suspension as Pradhana Archaka as illegal, arbitrary, improper, suffers from non-application of mind and unconstitutional; (ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Pradhana Archaka in the 3rd 2 respondent devasthanam since he does not incur any disqualification….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to Hereditary Archakas family. On enactment of Act 30/87, the hereditary rights including Archakatvam were abolished. Before the Enactment of Act 30/87, the petitioner’s family was declared as hereditary family in the year 1978 by competent authority. The petitioner was inducted into services as Hereditary Archakas in the 3rd respondent temple and honorarium was enhanced from Rs.200/- per month to Rs.300/- per month vide orders of the Deputy Commissioner dated 27.01.1991; for rendering services as Archaka in Sri Manikanteswara Swamy temple, subsidiary temple of Kanipakam temple. The Executive Officer of the temple recommended to the Commissioner to increase the consolidated pay of the petitioner to Rs.1,500/- vide proceedings dated 27.08.1997. The petitioner has passed Saiva Agamam Pravesa Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Endowments and a certificate was also issued in 2002. The petitioner also passed ‘Vara’ and ‘Pravara’ examinations conducted by the Commissioner, Endowments and obtained certificates in 2007 and 2012 respectively, which are requisite qualification for the promotion to the post of Upa-Pradhana Archaka and Pradhana Archaka under the Rules. In pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.858, Revenue (Endowments) Department, dated 08.10.1997, the Commissioner, Endowments vide order dated 07.04.1998, fixed the cadre strength fixing 1 post of Pradhana Archaka, 3 1 post of Upa-pradhana Archaka, 2 posts of Mukya Archaka, 5 posts of Upa- mukya Archaka and 4 posts of Archakas in the 3rd respondent-temple. In the year 1997, the petitioner’s grandfather was continuing as Heriditary Archaka was re-designated as Pradhana Archaka in 1997 and continued till his retirement in 2012. Since the petitioner working from long time by the time of fixation of cadre strength vide order dated 07.04.1997, the petitioner’s services were regularized by granting time scale in the cadre of Mukya Archaka vide order of the 3rd respondent dated 05.05.1997 with effect from 09.05.1997 and assigned to work at Sri Manikanteswara Swamy temple, subsidiary temple of Kanipakam temple and promoted as Upa-pradhana Archaka in year 2019 and Pradhana Archaka in 2024. While the petitioner continuing as Pradhana Archaka of Kanipakam temple, one T.Ravi Kumar made a false complaint on 26.03.2024 to the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner lack requisite qualifications for promotions as Pradhana Archaka and questioned petitioner’s credentials. In response to the same, the Commissioner ordered for an enquiry and a disciplinary committee of temple conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted its report stating that the allegations seems to be correct in its prima-facie opinion. Without giving opportunity to the petitioner in the said preliminary enquiry, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner vide Procgs Rc.No.A2/58/2024, dated 28.10.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4 3. Heard Mr.P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.N.Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the continuation of the petitioner under suspension, even after three months from the date of suspension, without conducting enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, is illegal and contrary to law. He further submits that the services of the petitioner, who working as Archaka in Sri Manikanteswara Swamy Temple was regularized in the cadre of Mukya Archaka as per G.O.Ms.No.858, dated 08.10.1997, in view of the need as recommendation made by the then E.O. of the Devasthanam vide 31.12.1997. He further submits that the respondents ought to have seen that the petitioner rendered his services as Hereditary Archaka before the fixation of cadre strength of the temple vide G.O.Ms.No.858, dated 08.10.1997 and is entitled to continue in that role, subject to undergoing training in Agama patashala or any other institution recognized by the Commissioner, Endowments, for a minimum period of six months as per the Rules. The petitioner since complied with the said requirement, he was continued and later regularized in the newly fixed cadre of Mukya Archaka in 1998 and thereafter promoted as Upa-pradhana Archaka in 2018 and further promoted 5 as Pradhana Archaka in 2021. He further submits that the suspension is not automatic and that simply having a complaint or allegation against someone does not automatically result in their suspension; a formal decision needs to be made by the appropriate authority to initiate suspension proceedings, considering the specific circumstances and gravity of the situation. He further submits that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity before placing him under suspension and the same is violative of principles of natural justice. The suspension of the petitioner, who was functioning as Pradhana Archaka of the 3rd respondent temple disrupts the functioning of his duties and suspension will not serve the larger public interest. 5. To support his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in G.Govindu vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation1, wherein it was held as follows: “11. The duties and responsibilities, conduct and discipline of an employee in public service are governed by service rules/ regulations. On allegation of misconduct, employer is entitled to take disciplinary action which may result in dismissal/ removal from service. The power to suspend an employee flows out of power to take disciplinary action on allegation of misconduct. The conduct rules/ regulations delineate the power of suspension and competent authority to exercise such power. When an allegation of misconduct comes to the notice of disciplinary authority and in the opinion of disciplinary authority that it is not desirable to entrust duties to the delinquent employee while enquiry/ investigation is in progress/ proposed, he may place his service under suspension. Suspension of service results in temporary withdrawal of duties and responsibilities of the delinquent employee. During the period of suspension the relationship of master and servant remains; the employee continues to be on the rolls of employment and is not entitled to take up any other assignment. He is still amenable to disciplinary control of the employer for any other misconduct 1 Writ Petition No.3172 of 2017 6 also. He is only disabled from attending to his work. He is not entitled to draw pay and allowances. For his sustenance during the period of suspension, he is paid allowance which in normal parlance called „subsistence allowance‟. It is normally fixed at 50% of last pay drawn, which can be enhanced to 75%.” 6. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the Archakas and Other Office holders and Servants Qualifications and Emoluments Rules, 1987, wherein it was held as follows: “11. (1) In the case of Archaka whose office was hereditary prior to the commencement of this Act, and who is not qualified as prescribed under Rule 9 shall undergo training in Agama Patashala managed by Dharma Prachara Parishad constituted under Section 112 of the Act, or any Agama Patasala recognized by the Commissioner for a period not less than six months. (2) Every Archaka required to undergo training under sub-rule (1) above shall be paid stipend which shall be less than the emoluments payable to the highest grade Archaka of the Institution concerned.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation for the notice dated 28.10.2024 and requested for dropping further action and to re-induct the petitioner into service. But so far no action has been taken either to drop further action or to conduct enquiry or to revoke suspension. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 8. Per Contra, learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and furnished a copy of written instructions vide Memo in Rc.No.C1/13027(41)/4/2024, dated 27.02.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner and submits that the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, MZ-II, Tirupathi is 7 appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter and he is directed to conduct detailed enquiry and rules and submit report within one week. Therefore, learned Government Pleader prays to pass appropriate orders. 9. Perused the record. 10. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, admittedly, the petitioner’s services were regularized by granting time scale in the cadre of Mukya Archaka vide order of the 3rd respondent dated 05.05.1997 and assigned to work at Sri Manikanteswara Swamy temple and promoted as Upa-pradhana Archaka in 2019 and Pradhana Archaka in 2024. On a complaint made by one T.Ravi Kumar, the Commissioner ordered for an enquiry and the disciplinary committee found that the allegations against the petitioner were proved. Hence, the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.A2/58/2024, dated 28.10.2024 placed the petitioner under suspension as Pradhana Archaka. Further, the Deputy Commissioner vide proceedings dated 27.02.2025 appointed the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, MZ-II, Tirupathi to enquire into the matter and directed to submit report. The enquiry is still pending for consideration. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing 8 the entire material on record, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i. The respondents are directed to conduct the enquiry as per the procedure. ii. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Pradhana Archaka at the 3rd respondent temple i.e., Sri Swayambu Varasidhi Vinayaka Swamy Devasthanam, Kanipakam, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. 12. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 07-03-2025 BMS