Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Morusupalli Raghavendra Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24170 of 2021
Decided On : 29-06-2022
ANDHRA PRADESH CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987 - SECTION 35, 36, 37, 38 - OFFICE HOLDERS AND SERVANTS PUNISHMENT RULES, 1987 - RULE 6 - HEREDITARY ARCHAKA - SUSPENSION - JURISDICTION - EXECUTIVE OFFICER - COMMISSIONER - RELIGIOUS OFFICE HOLDER - DISTINCTION - ARCHAKA EXAMINATION - AGAMAS - APPOINTMENT - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - POWER TO PLACE UNDER SUSPENSION - ANNUAL INCOME OF INSTITUTION - TEN LAKHS RUPEES - EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a hereditary archaka of the 4th respondent temple, challenged the impugned order of suspension passed by the Executive Officer of the temple under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act). The petitioner contended that the Executive Officer lacked the authority to suspend him as he was a religious office holder and only the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to do so under the proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Executive Officer had the authority to suspend the petitioner under Section 37(2) of the Act and Rule 6(1) of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987. The Court found that the petitioner was not a religious office holder but a hereditary archaka, and thus did not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act. The Court further held that the Executive Officer, as the appointing authority, had the power to exercise disciplinary control over the petitioner, including the power to place him under suspension pending inquiry into grave charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the Executive Officer had the authority to suspend the petitioner, a hereditary archaka, under Section 37 of the Act and Rule 6(1) of the Rules? 2. Whether the petitioner was a religious office holder and thus fell within the ambit of the proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Executive Officer had the authority to suspend the petitioner under Section 37(2) of the Act and Rule 6(1) of the Rules. The Court found that the petitioner was not a religious office holder but a hereditary archaka, and thus did not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act. The Court further held that the Executive Officer, as the appointing authority, had the power to exercise disciplinary control over the petitioner, including the power to place him under suspension pending inquiry into grave charges. 2. The Court held that the petitioner was not a religious office holder. The Court found that the term 'religious office holder' was not defined in the Act and that the petitioner did not possess the qualifications required for a religious office holder under Section 36 of the Act. The Court also found that the petitioner was not required to pass an archaka examination or perform archana, puja, or other rituals, which were duties specifically assigned to archakas.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Executive Officer had the jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner and that the impugned order was not vitiated by any jurisdictional errors.
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 :
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 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 against him indicating that he threatened to kill the Chairman of the Trust Board and behaved irresponsibly in his duties a
The Executive Officer of a religious institution or endowment, whose annual income exceeds ten lakhs rupees, has the exclusive jurisdiction and power to deal with the office holders and servants of t....
suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent’s continuance in office....
Administrative powers of a religious institution trustee are subject to statutory supervision. Boards cannot appoint executive officers indefinitely, nor can trustees create non-sanctioned posts. App....
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
The Commissioner lacked authority to appoint an Executive Officer for temple administration, violating established law and trustee rights under the HR & CE Act.
The appointment of an Archaka is a secular act and hence, the hereditary right cannot be claimed.
Executive Officer empowered under HR&CE Act Rule 14 to implement disciplinary actions; failure to prove enquiry participation upholds dismissal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
