Telangana High Court
Sri Gnana Saraswathi Devasthanam vs P. Sanjeev Kumar on 19 March, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL NOs.1178 OF 2023 AND 20 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao) Both these Writ Appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment, as they are filed aggrieved by the same order passed in W.P.No.25314 of 2022, dated 12.06.2023.
2. Writ Appeal No.1178 of 2023 is filed by Sri Gnana Saraswathi Devasthanam, Basar village & Mandal, Nirmal District/respondent No.3, and Writ Appeal No.20 of 2024 is filed by the Writ petitioner.
3. Heard Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Endowments appearing for the appellant and Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2
4. For convenience, the facts in Writ Appeal No.1178 of 2023 are discussed hereunder.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is working as a Pradhana Archaka in the appellant temple and the appellant issued a charge Memo, dated 03.08.2017 by invoking Rule 20 of CCS (CCA) Rules on the allegation that the respondent took out the Utsav Statue of Goddess Saraswathi without permission, for performing the pooja in a school. Later, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Competent Authority to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted his report for initiating action against the respondent. Accordingly, the Executive Officer, who was authorized to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, had passed an order imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect upon the respondent vide proceedings, dated 16.11.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent approached the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, by filing the appeal, but the same was rejected by the Commissioner of Endowments vide proceedings, 3 dated 30.07.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed W.P. No.23381 of 2021 before this Court and the said Writ Petition was partly allowed by setting aside the order, dated 30.07.2021 and that the matter was remitted back to the appellant to pass orders afresh on merits by giving detailed findings and reasons and also taking into consideration the closure of criminal case against the respondent. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Endowments had passed orders, dated 05.05.2022 confirming the punishment imposed on the respondent i.e. stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the respondent filed the present W.P.No.25314 of 2022 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the same partly by modifying the impugned punishment imposed vide proceedings, dated 05.05.2022, for stoppage of two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect to that of 'stoppage of two Annual Grade Increments without cumulative effect.'
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge had not appreciated the orders passed 4 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the case of Director General of RPF & others Vs. Ch. Sai Babu , 1 wherein it was held that normally, the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all relevant factors including nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works. Normally, in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, High courts or Tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment. The learned Single Judge instead of remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration, modified the orders, which is not in accordance and in consonance of the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
1 Civil Appeal No.4622 of 2000 5
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant had further contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in coming to a conclusion that there is absolutely no legal prohibition or executive instructions in writing, which was communicated to the respondent preventing the respondent from taking out the Utsava Statue of the Goddess for performing the pooja outside the temple. The respondent without informing the authorities carried away the idol of processional deity (Utsava Vigraham) along with temple jewellery, as such, the respondent is liable to be punished. He further submitted that the respondent has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition without availing the statutory remedy. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25314 of 2022, dated 12.06.2023 is liable to be set aside and allow the Writ Appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/appellant in W.A.No.20 of 2024 has contended that there is absolutely no misconduct involved even based on the allegations made in the charge memo and the entire enquiry which was conducted by the appellant, was in gross violation of principles of natural justice 6 and also in gross violation to the Statutory Rules as contemplated under Rule 20 and 21 of CCS(CCA) Rules, and the learned Single Judge did not give any finding to the said fact that the enquiry was conducted as per Rules and the learned Single Judge has not considered contention of the respondent that even the statutory appeal was not properly considered and that the entire procedure followed by the appellant, is in gross violation to statutory Rule. Even if the facts were to be admitted as a whole, it does not constitute any misconduct because there is absolutely no legal prohibition or executive instructions in writing, which was communicated to the respondent, preventing the respondent from taking out the Utsav Statue of the Goddess for performing pooja outside the temple. In fact, there are several instances where the Authority itself instructed the respondent to carry the idol for performing the pooja to various places. Even in the present charge itself indicate that the Utsav idol can be carried out to other places for performing the pooja, after taking the permission from the Competent Authority. This would clearly indicate that there is no legal prohibition for taking out the Utsav idol for performing the pooja.
7
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that in the instant case it is proved that the idol was not even a Utsav idol. The Enquiry Officer, who was appointed by the Competent Authority to conduct an enquiry, did not follow any procedure as contemplated under law. No witnesses were examined in the presence of respondent, no copy of the statements were given, no documents relating to the issue was marked or cited by the authority, no cross-examination was allowed to be conducted, even no notice was issued while conducting an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report on 10.09.2019 stating that the Utsava Murthi/Idol as only Aluminum with copper coating hallow showcase idol which was not fit for any pooja or rituals in accordance with Agama Sastras. The police also closed the criminal case against the respondent. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25314 of 2022, dated 12.06.2023 is liable to be set aside and allow the Writ Appeal.
8
10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that there is absolutely no legal prohibition or executive instructions in writing, which was communicated to the respondent, preventing the respondent from taking out the Utsav Statue of the Goddess for performing pooja outside the temple, and basing on the oral instructions only things are going on. Even otherwise, once there is no legal prohibition or executive instructions in writing with regard to taking away the Idols for performing pooja outside the temple, the action of the respondent cannot be taken that much seriously. No doubt, the respondent without informing anybody, has taken away the Idols for performing pooja outside the temple, for that, the punishment given by the Competent Authority is highly excessive and disproportionate. A perusal of the record would reveal that even the Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report on 10.09.2019 stating that the Utsava Murthi/Idol is only Aluminum with copper coating hallow showcase idol which was not fit for any pooja or rituals in accordance with Agama Sastras. Moreover, the police filed final report closing the case against 9 the respondent. In those set of circumstances, the punishment imposed by the Competent Authority is highly excessive and disproportionate and the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the facts and modified the punishment for stoppage of two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect to that of 'stoppage of two Annual Grade Increments without cumulative effect.'
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant in W.A.No.20 of 2024 that the non- availability of written rules and regulations enabled the respondent to take out the Idols of the temple for performing pooja outside the temple and that he cannot be punished for the same, cannot be sustained. The mere absence of written rules with regard to usage of Idols of the temple, cannot be an excuse for the respondent to take out the Idols of the temple without the prior permission of the temple authorities. It is needless to say that such an act amounts to misconduct. In view of the above modification in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25314 of 2022, dated 12.06.2023, this Court is not 10 inclined to interfere with the same again, and as such, both the Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI _____________________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date: 19.03.2024 BDR