Morusupalli Raghavendra Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3038 AP

                                                                                      RC,J
                                                                      W.P.No.24170 of 2021

                                            1


                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

                       WRIT PETITION No. 24170 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following

relief:

".....to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, on in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension vide Memo in Lr.No.Nil/2021, dated 28.08.2021 issued by the 4th respondent and further directing to hand over the keys of the temple and other articles of jewellery of the deity to Sri Vamaraju Venkateswarlu, son of late Krishna Murthy, who is working as an attender in Sri Chennakevasa and Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Chintalacheruvu village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District and allowing him to perform archakatvam in the 4th respondent temple and in not paying the salaries of the petitioner from September, 2020, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and contrary to Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and contrary to Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by revoking the suspension order dated 28.08.2021 and pay salary payable to the petitioner from September, 2020 to till date of reinstatement and for all consequential benefits on reinstatement to the petitioner as per Rules in the interest of justice........"

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the 4th respondent temple is a

public temple having been published in the year 1990 under Section 6(c)(ii) of

the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') and the temple

has got landed property and the deity Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy was

worshipped by Sri Vyasaraya Theerthulu of Madhwa cult in ancient times. It is

the further case of the petitioner that his great grandfather Sri Narasadasu

got the deity and founded the temple by doing Pratista of the deity and had

been the hereditary trustee-cum-archaka of the temple and later the RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

petitioner's father succeeded the trusteeship and archakatvam of the temple

and rendered services till his death in the year 1998 and after his death, the

petitioner has been performing the archakatvam as hereditary right and the

petitioner is being paid salary and also paditaram amount and he was given

employee code No.4646. It is the further case of the petitioner that a Trust

Board was appointed to the temple and Sri Jakkireddy Subba Reddy was

selected as Chairman of the Trust Board and eversince his entry into the

office of Trust Board, the Chairman used to harass, insult and humiliate him

on one pretext or the other and in that connection in the month of August,

2021, the 4th respondent has given certain instructions to the staff of the

temple indicating the timings and duties to be performed on day to day basis.

It is the further case of the petitioner that on 16.08.2021, the Trust Board has

passed a resolution authorizing the Executive Officer to take appropriate

action as per law and for removal of the petitioner from service. It the

further case of the petitioner that the Chairman of the Trust Board has made

a complaint vide FIR No.305 of 2021, dated 20.08.2021, under Section 506

I.P.C. alleging that on 16.08.2021 at 10.00 a.m. a meeting was conducted in

the premises of the temple among the members of the Trust Board and the

Chairman has complained against the petitioner about the punctuality of his

attendance and upon that the petitioner threatened the complainant with dire

consequences before the members of the committee and that the said FIR

came to be registered on the direction given by the Court pursuant to a

private complaint lodged. It is the further case of the petitioner that on

18.08.2021, the 4th respondent issued a notice making five (05) charges RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

against him indicating that he threatened to kill the Chairman of the Trust

Board and behaved irresponsibly in his duties and he does not have the

requisite qualifications mentioned in Sec.36(c) & (d) of the Act and even

earlier the Executive Officers have recommended for action against him and

immediately, he has submitted his explanation on 19.08.2021 requesting to

drop the charges and to his surprise the 4th respondent issued the impugned

suspension order with a direction to handover the keys of the temple, the

articles and jewellery of the deity to Sri Vamaraju Venkateswara Rao, who is

now allowed to perform the archakatvam service in the 4th respondent

temple. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition for the

reliefs mentioned supra.

3. The 4th respondent-Executive Officer filed his counter, along with an

application vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, inter alia, disputing the contents of the writ

petition, praying this Court to vacate the interim orders dated 03.11.2021

passed in this writ petition. The main stand taken in the said counter is that

the alleged charges imputed against the petitioner in memo dated 18.08.2021

are serious and grave in nature and the petitioner has been placed under

suspension pending enquiry by memo dated 28.08.2021, taking recourse to

Rule 6(1) of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 and the

said order of suspension would not stand characterized or be termed as

imposition of punishment and the 4th respondent does possess power and

competency to place an employee under suspension and it cannot be

construed that the order of suspension was passed under Section 37 of the RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

Act and thus the petitioner failed to make out any case and relying on

decision in 2006(3) ALD 161, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the

4th respondent denying the stand taken by the 4th respondent in his counter.

In the said reply it is the contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent

is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension as in the instant

case there is no authorization given to the Executive Officer to initiate

disciplinary action against the petitioner and that the specific word suspension

is also employed in Section 37(1) of the Act and the Rules cannot override

the statute and that the decision relied on by the 3rd respondent relates to a

secular staff but not a religious office holder and ultimately contended that

the petitioner is a religious officer holder and thus the 4th respondent has no

power or jurisdiction and it is only the Commissioner that is competent to

impose any punishment under Section 37(1) of the Act and accordingly

prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. Heard Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3

and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent.

6. Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, in

elaboration to what has been stated in the petition would submit that, the

petitioner being a 'Hereditary Archaka' is a 'religious office holder' and thus

the petitioner being neither an 'office holder' nor a 'servant', do not come

within the scope of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987.

RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the

writ petition would further submit that, under Section 37 of the Act, the

petitioner being a religious office holder, the Executive Officer has no

disciplinary power or authority to place him under suspension pending enquiry

and such a power is conferred only upon the Commissioner as per proviso-1

to Section 37(1) and under Section 38(1) of the Act and the Executive Officer

cannot usurp such power claiming himself competent empowered by Section

6(1) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987. Thus, the 4th

respondent being incompetent to pass orders, the impugned proceedings

placing the petitioner under suspension are liable to be set aside. In support

of his contentions that Executive Officer has no power or competence to

place the petitioner under suspension, the learned counsel for the petitioner

placed reliance on the decision in Kondapaka Lakshmi Narasimha

Charyulu, Archaka vs. J.Sudhakar, Manager, Sri Laklshmi Narasimha

Temple, Devunipally and others1.

7. On the other hand, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel

for the 4th respondent temple, vehemently argued that the petitioner cannot

claim himself to be a 'religious office holder' and he being an Archaka of the

4th respondent temple, as per Rule 6(1) of the Office Holders and Servants

Punishments Rules, 1987, the 4th respondent/Executive Officer is competent

to exercise power to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry.

. 2007(2) ALD 569 RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

In support of his contention that the 4th respondent has jurisdiction to pass

impugned order of suspension, the learned Standing counsel placed reliance

on the decision in Papu Vennkata Rao v. Commissioner of

Endowments, Hyderabad and others 2 , and prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments

supported the contentions and arguments so advanced by the learned

Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent regarding competency of the 4th

respondent to place the petitioner under suspension. It is his further

contention that the petitioner being Archaka, Section 37(2) of the Act and

Rule-6(1) of the Rules confers jurisdiction upon the Executive Officer to

initiate disciplinary proceedings against all office holders and servants

attached to a charitable and religious institution. The learned Government

Pleader further contended that Section 38(1) of the Act vests power to the

Commissioner to take action, whenever he noticed any lapses on the part of

the Executive Officer in initiating action against the office holders or servants

referred to in sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 37 of the Act and this does

not mean the Commissioner has only got jurisdiction to initiate action. Hence,

the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments prayed to dismiss

the writ petition.

9. From the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the

parties, now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner is hereditary

. 2006(3) ALD 161 RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

Archaka of the 4th respondent temple and the executive officer of the 4th

respondent temple vide impugned memo in Lr.No.Nil/2021, dated 28.08.2021

has placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry.

10. Clause (1) and Clause (15) of Section 2 of the Act defines 'Archaka'

and 'hereditary office-holder' respectively in the following terms:

(1) 'archaka' includes a Pujari, Panda, an Archakatvam Mirasidar or other person, who personally performs or conducts any archana, puja or other ritual:

(15) 'hereditary Office-holder' means any office-holder including Pedda Jeeyangar, China Jeeyangar, a Mirasidar and an Archaka of a charitable or religious institution or endowment the succession to whose office devolves according to the rule of succession laid down by the founder or according to the usage or custom applicable to the institution or endowment or according to the law of succession for the time being in force, as the case may be;

11. Clause (15) of Section-2 of the Act while defining 'hereditary office-

holder' in clear and categorical terms includes Archaka of a charitable or

religious institution or endowment.

12. Appointment of office holders and servants etc., is dealt with by

Section 35 of Act. Sub Section (1) of Section 35 of the Act envisages that

every vacancy, whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office holders

or servants of a charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be filled

by the Trustee. Proviso 1 to Section 35(1) of the Act says that in the case of a

charitable or religious institution or endowment whose annual income exceeds

Rs. 10 Lakhs, the Executive Officer shall appoint the office holders and

servants thereof.

RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

13. It is, thus, clear that the Executive Officer of the temple is the

appointing authority and exclusive jurisdiction is vested in him to appoint

office holders and servants of a religious institution or endowment whose

annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs per annum.

14. It is an established principle of law that the appointing authority shall

always have the requisite power and jurisdiction to exercise disciplinary

control over all the office holders and servants and such power of discipline,

control shall always include the power to place an office holder or servant

under suspension pending inquiry into grave charges or investigation.

15. Whether the Executive Officer had the power, to place hereditary

Archaka under suspension pending enquiry is the question, which can be

answered only on an examination of the provisions of the Act and the rules

made thereunder.

16. Sections 37 and 38 of the Act deals with the punishment of office

holders and servants. For benefit, they are extracted hereunder:

"37. Punishment of office holders and servants - (1) All office holders and servants attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment, shall be under the control of the trustee; and the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure and for reasons to be recorded in writing, impose fine, or order suspension, removal, dismissal or any other prescribed penalty, on any of them for breach of trust, misappropriation, incapacity, disobediance of orders, misconduct, violation of the code of conduct laid down or neglect of duty assigned by or under this Act or other sufficient cause.

Provided that in case of a religious office holder, it shall be competent for the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him by an order in writing to impose the penalty of removal or dismissal on a report made by the trustee or Executive Officer, or where there is no executive officer or the trustee as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), in the case of an officeholder or servant of an institution or endowment whose annual income RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

exceeds rupees ten lakhs, the power to impose any penalty, specified in that sub- section shall, subject to such restrictions and conditions, as may be laid down by the Government, be exercised by the executive officer after following such procedure as may be prescribed.

3[Provided that in the case of a religious office holder, it shall be competent for the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him by an order in writing to impose the penalty of removal or dismissal on a report made by the trustee or executive officer or where there is no executive officer or the trustee as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed.]

(3) (a) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved by an order passed under sub- section (1) by the trustee may, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be having jurisdiction, from the order of the trustee; (b) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (2) by the Executive Officer, may within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him prefer an appeal to the trustee.

(4) (a) Any office-holder or servant may, within sixty days from the date of receipt by him of the order passed in an appeal filed under clause (a) of subsection (3), prefer a second appeal if such order is made by-

(i) the Commissioner, to the Government;

(ii) the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, to the Commissioner;

(b) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved by an order of the trustee under clause (b) of sub-section (3) may, within sixty days from the date of receipt by him of such order, prefer a second appeal to the Commissioner.

(5) (a) Where it is noticed by the trustee that any office-holder or servant attached to an institution or endowment has not been dealt with suitably by the Executive Officer under sub-section (2), for any of the lapses specified in sub- section (1), the trustee may direct the Executive Officer to take action under sub- section (2), failing which the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure, impose, by an order in writing any of the penalties specified in sub-section (1);

(b) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved an order, passed by the trustee or by the Executive Officer, in pursuance of the direction given under clause (a) may, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner.

38. Power of Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner to punish office-holders etc., in certain cases - (1) Where it is noticed by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction that any office-holder or servant attached to an institution or endowment has not been dealt with suitably by the trustee or the Executive Officer as the case may be under section 37 for any of the lapses specified in sub-section (1) thereof, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, may direct the trustee or the Executive Officer to take action under section 37, failing which the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, may after following the prescribed procedure, impose by an order in writing any of the penalities specified in subsection (1) of that section on such office-holder or servant.

RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

(2) Any office holder or servant aggrieved by an order passed under sub- section (1) may within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an appeal if such order is passed by-

(a) the Commissioner, to the Government;

(b) the Deputy Commissioner, to the Commissioner; and

(c) the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner; and any order passed in such appeal shall be final."

17. Section 37(1) confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Trustees to

deal with the office holders and servants of an institution whose annual

income is less than rupees ten lakhs and sub-section (2) confers exclusive

jurisdiction upon the Executive Officer concerned to deal with office holders or

servants of an institution, whose income exceeds rupees ten lakhs. There is a

clear delineation of jurisdiction and power between the trustee and the

Executive Officer and each have to discharge their respective duty and

exercise jurisdiction in their own sphere.

18. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 153 of the Act, the

'Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments

Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987' were made and notified

in G.O.Ms.No.830, Revenue (Endowments-I) dated 18.08.1989. Rule-6 of the

punishment Rules reads as under:

"6(1) As office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment may be ordered to be under suspension from office or service by the trustee, the Executive Officer, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Regional Joint Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges where such suspension is necessary in public interest :

Provided that where the investigation has not been completed and the action proposed to be taken in regard to him has not been completed within a period of six months from the date of suspension, the fact shall be reported to the Government, Commissioner, Regional Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be for orders. The RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

period of suspension shall not, however, exceed six months without the previous orders of the Government in the case of suspension ordered by the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner and of the Commissioner in other cases.

Provided further that during the period of suspension he shall be paid, subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules in Chapter-VIII of the Fundamental Rule and Subsidiary Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Government.

(2) An Office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the Authority competent to impose the suspension and shall remain under suspension until further orders by such authority.

(3) Any order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by the authority by which such order was made or deemed to have been made, or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.

7. Every order imposing the penalty, shall be communicated in writing to the office-holder or servant concerned."

19. Rule 6(1) of the Rules empowers the trustee or the Executive Officer

to place an office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious

institution or endowment pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges

where such suspension is necessary in public interest.

20. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in

Kondapaka Lakshmi Narasimha Charyulu vs. J. Sudhakar (supra 1), a

learned single Judge of High Court of composite state of Andhra Pradesh, at

para-6 held as follows:

"6. Section 35 of the Endowments Act empowers the Board of Trustees to appoint office holders or servants/Archakas in a religious institution. Section 36 prescribes qualifications for Archakas. The Rules made by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 261, dated 20 May 2002, (The Andhra Pradesh charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endonments Archakas and other office Holders and Servants Qualification and Endowment, Rules) in relation to S. 35(3) of the Endowments Act, prescribed qualification of Archakas and other temple servants. Even as per these Rules, the Government RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

or any officer of the Endowment Department or a Manager is not competent to appoint Archakas. Therefore, one has to fall back on S. 35(1) of the Endowments Act, which empowers only the Board of Trustees or trustee to appoint the Archaka. Therefore, disciplinary action can be taken only by the Board of Trustees or trustee, and not by an executive officer. In any event, certainly, not by a Manager."

21. The above decision was delivered on 12.12.2006. However, Section

35 of the Act has been amended by the Act No.33 of 2007, S.10, with effect

from 14-12-2007 empowering trustee to appoint office holders or

servants/Archakas in a religious institution, whose annual income is less than

rupees ten lakhs per annum, and the Executive Officer to appoint office

holders or servants/Archakas in a religious institution, whose annual exceeds

rupees ten lakhs per annum. Since section 35 of the Act has been amended

subsequent to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

22. In the decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th

respondent temple in Pappu Venkata Rao v. Commissioner of

Endowments, Hyderabad (supra 2), a learned Judge of High Court of

composite state of Andhra Pradesh held at Paras-24 & 26 thus:

"24. Section 37 confers power on the Trustee and the Executive Officer to impose punishment, which includes suspension as a measure of punishment. In the case on hand, however, the order of suspension is not as a measure of punishment, but is merely an order passed pending enquiry.

25. x x x x

26. ............. It is also well settled that in the absence of any prohibition, any person who exercises some degree of control over an employee, even if he is not the appointing authority, is entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet (P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General, (1993) 1 SCC 419 : AIR 1993 SC 1321). The distinction, between issuance of charge-sheet and placing the employee RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

under suspension pending enquiry on the one hand and imposition of punishment on the other, cannot be lost sight of. While punishment has necessarily to be imposed by the authority on whom such power is conferred under the Act or the rules made thereunder, insofar as the power, to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry or to frame charges, is concerned, such power, in the absence of any prohibition, can also be exercised by any other appropriate authority, who can be said to exercise some degree of control over the employee concerned. Since Rule 6(1) clearly empowers the Commissioner to place a temple employee under suspension, and inasmuch as the 2nd respondent, on the date on which the impugned order dated 20-7-2005 was issued, was acting under colour of lawful authority, (G.O.Rt. No. 3661 dated 31-5-2005), the impugned charge- sheet-cum suspension order dated 20-7-2005 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The writ petition, insofar as it relates to issuance of the charge- sheet cum suspension order dated 20-7-2005, fails and is hereby dismissed."

23. From the above, it is evident that though punishment has necessarily

to be imposed by the authority on whom such power is conferred under the

Act, in so far as the power to place an employee under suspension pending

enquiry or to frame charges, is concerned, such power, in the absence of any

prohibition, can also be exercised by any other appropriate authority, who can

be said to exercise some degree of control over the employee concerned.

24. In the case on hand, as per Section 35 of the Act, the Executive

Officer is the appointing authority of office holders and servants of the

temple, endowment or religious institution, whose annual income exceeds

rupees ten lakhs per annum and he is the disciplinary authority empowered to

impose fine, or order suspension, removal, dismissal or any other prescribed

penalty on the office holders and servants as per under section 37(2) of the

Act. The scheme of the Act read together with the said Rules would

undoubtedly reveal that the Executive Officer is the competent authority to

place an office holder or servant of an institution whose annual income RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

exceeds rupees ten lakhs under suspension pending inquiry into grave

charges or investigation.

25. Thus, a combined reading of Sections 35, 37 and 38 of the Act

coupled with Rule 6(1) of the Rules would make it clear that exclusive

jurisdiction is conferred upon the Executive Officer to deal with the office

holders and servants of an institution whose annual income exceed rupees

ten lakhs and such power to deal with the office holders and servants,

includes the power to place them under suspension pending inquiry into the

grave charges or investigation in public interest. Section 37(5) of the Act

makes it very clear that the office holders or servants, if aggrieved by the

action of the Trustee or the Executive Officer, as the case may be, can prefer

an appeal to the Commissioner. Thus the Commissioner is the appellate

authority but not the disciplinary authority as per Section 37 of the Act.

26. Now coming to the core of the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the petitioner being a 'hereditary archaka' comes under the

definition 'religious office holder' and hence he is placed out of ambit and

scope of The Office Holders and Servants Punishments Rules, 1987 and thus

Commissioner only is competent to exercise jurisdiction and place him under

suspension as per proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act.

27. Proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act says that in case of a religious

officer holder, it shall be competent for the Commissioner or an officer

authorized by him by an order in writing to impose the penalty of removal or

dismissal on a report made by the trustee or Executive Officer.

RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

28. Now, in order to answer the above contention raised by the

petitioner, it has to be seen whether an 'archaka' or 'hereditary archaka'

stand on parity with 'religious office holder'.

29. The term 'religious office holder' has not been defined in the Act.

The said term came to be included in Sections 35 & 37 of the Act, by way of

amendment by Act No.33 of 2007 with effect from 14.12.2007.

30. Section 36 of the Act prescribes qualifications for being appointed

as or for being an Archaka of a religious institution. For convenience, the

same is extracted hereunder:

"36. Qualifications for Archaka - A person shall be qualified for being appointed as or for being an Archaka of a religious institution or endowment-

(a) if he has passed the Archaka Examination recognised by the Commissioner;

(b) if he is not disabled or suffering from any virulent and contagious disease;

(c) if he is able to recite vedic mantras and slokas relating to rituals with clarity and without any fault;

(d) if he possesses good conduct and character;

(e) if he is free from Sapthavyasanams:

Explanation:- For purposes of this section, the expression "Sapthavyasanams" means gambling, addiction to intoxicating liquors and drugs, womanising, hunting, stealing, abusing others and jealousy."

31. The definition of the term 'Archaka' includes a Pujari, Panda, an

Archakatvam Mirasidar or other person, who personally performs or conducts

any archana, puja or other ritual.

32. A conjoint reading of Section 36 of the Act with the definition

'archaka' in clause (1) of Section 2 of the Act makes it clear that for being RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

appointed as 'archaka', one has to pass Archaka examination among other

qualifications and that he has to perform or conduct archana, puja or other

rituals.

33. Whereas second proviso to section 35 of the Act, which has been

included by the Act No.33 of 2007 with effect from 14-12-2007, says that

appointment of religious office holders shall be made keeping in view the

Agamas of the respective institutions and preference shall be given to those

who are well versed with the Agama, custom and usage of the respective

institution.

34. Hence, it is evident that a 'religious office holder' need not pass any

archaka examination and he need not perform or conduct archana, puja or

other ritual as that of an 'Archaka'.

35. In view of the above, an 'archaka' or 'hereditary archaka' does not

stand on the same footing as that of a 'religious office holder', since the

qualifications for both of them are entirely different and so also the duties

they have to perform and thus it can be safely held that they are two

different categories.

36. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be a religious office

holder and he is only 'hereditary archaka' of the 4th respondent temple. Thus,

the Executive Officer of the temple is the appointing as well as disciplinary

authority as per Sections 35 & 37(2) of the Act respectively.

37. A combined reading of Sections 35 & 37 of the Act coupled with Rule

6 of the Rules framed under the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction and power RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

upon the Executive Officer to deal with the office holders and servants of an

institution, whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs per annum, and

such power includes the power to place them under suspension pending

inquiry.

38. In view of the above observations and findings, the Memo in

Lr.No.Nil/2021, dated 28.08.2021 issued by the 4th respondent placing the

petitioner under suspension impugned in this writ petition does not suffer

from any jurisdictional errors and the writ petition deserves dismissal.

39. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim orders grated on

03.11.2021 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 29th June, 2022 Note: L.R.copy to be marked.

B/o RR RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION No.24170 of 2021

29th June, 2022

L.R. Copy to be marked B/o RR RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION No.24170 of 2021

Between:

Morusupalli Raghavendra Rao ... PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. & 4 others ... RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 29.06.2022

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

May be allowed to see the order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be

Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

See the fair copy of the order? Yes/No

_____________________

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J RC,J W.P.No.24170 of 2021

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

*HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

+ WRIT PETITIION No.24170 of 2021

% Dated:29.06.2022

Between:

# Morusupalli Raghavendra Rao                                             ... PETITIONER
                                              AND

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
        Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
        Endowments Department, Secretariat,
        Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. & 4 others             ... RESPONDENTS


! Counsel for petitioner                   : Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao

^Counsel for Respondents                   : Government Pleader for Endowments for R1 to R3

                                             Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Standing counsel for R4

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

   1.    2007(2) ALD 569
   2.    2006(3) ALD 161