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.
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,
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
