JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ch. Krupavanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-Senior Assistant in the 5th respondent temple, challenging his order of suspension vide the proceedings in Rc.No.Nil/2020, dated 11.10.2020. The prayer in the writ petition is reproduced as under :

“It is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order of direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not revoking the suspension order dated 11.01.2020 as per the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.830 dated 18.08.1989 and in not paying the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner from January, 2021 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and contrary to Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings dated 11.10.2020 w.e.f. 10.10.2020 as he was trapped by Anti Corruption Bureau on 06.10.2020, but till date any charge memo has not been served and the petitioner is still under suspension though more than 1 ½ year has passed. Any order, exceeding six months period of suspension has also not been passed under proviso to Rule 6(1) of the of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 (for short, “the Rules, 1987”) framed in exercise of the power conferred by Sections 37 and 38 read with Section 153 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act, 1987”), and as such continuance of the suspension beyond six months is illegal. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chowdary vs. Union of India, 2015 Law Suit (SC) 177, as also the judgment dated 23.12.2020 of this Court in W.P.No.19625 of 2020 decided on 23.12.2020 to contend that the charge memo/charge sheet not having been served, even till date, suspension period could not extend beyond three months.

4. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that the Executive Officer passed order of suspension in obedience of the reference mentioned in the order of suspension. He submits that the Commissioner has the power to give directions under Section 38 of the Act, 1987. He however submits that any charge memo has not been issued till date nor any order extending suspension period beyond six months in terms of proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 1987 has been passed. He submits that the petitioner would be entitled only to the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The court first deals with the submission of the learned standing counsel based on Section 38 of the Act, 1987.

7. It is also relevant to reproduce Section 38 of the Act, 1987 which reads as under:-

“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 aft