Back
1993 Supreme(Kar) 11
Karnataka High Court
K.V.SRIDHARA ADIGA - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 01-18-93
W.A. : 2068 of 1992
A.S.VISHWANATH, PADUBIDARI RAGHAVENDRA RAO, S.R.NAYAK, S.VIJAYASHANKAR
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the executive officer does not have the authority to place an employee under suspension, and the administrator should consider such orders as proposals and make independent decisions.
Headnote:
Suspension - Religious and Charitable Endowments - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, Section 49, Rule 3 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 49 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and Rule 3, and how it influenced the decision regarding the suspension of an employee of a temple. The court highlighted the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and place an employee under suspension pending enquiry, and the power of the executive officer in supervising the day-to-day affairs and activities in the temple.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought to quash an order passed by the commissioner for religious and charitable endowments in Karnataka, regarding the suspension of an employee of a temple. The appellant contended that the commissioner acted without authority of law, while the respondent argued that the trustees or the administrator alone are competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and place the employee under suspension pending enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the executive officer could not have placed the employee under suspension, and the administrator should have considered the order as a proposal and taken a decision independently. The court also noted that the commissioner did not consider the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and the decision of a division bench of the court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and place an employee under suspension pending enquiry, and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the executive officer does not have the authority to place an employee under suspension, and the administrator should consider such orders as proposals and take independent decisions. The court emphasized the need to consider the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and the interpretation of the scheme in question.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed in part, the order passed by the learned single judge and the commissioner for religious and charitable endowments were set aside, and the order passed by the administrator was quashed. The court directed the administrator to treat the order passed by the executive officer as a proposal and make an independent decision. The employee was entitled to function until an appropriate order was passed by the administrator.
( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, All the respondents except respondent 5 are served. Notice to respondent 5 is dispensed with as he is not a necessary party to the proceeding. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.
( 2 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 8-10-1992 passed by thelearned single judge in W. P. no. 23890 of 1992. 2. 1. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. He sought for quashing the order dated 1-8-1992 passed by the commissioner for religious and charitable endowments in Karnataka, respondent 1, bearing no. Rev. Ptn. 5/1992-93 produced as annexure-h in the writ petition. 2. 2. The learned single judge has held that as the enquiry is pending, no interference is called for. Hence the petitioner in the writ petition has come up in this appeal.
( 3 ) IT is contended by Sri padubidri raghavendra rao, learned counsel for theappellant that the first respondent (commissioner for religious and charitable endowments) acted without the authority of law in entertaining a revision petition against the proposal dated 9-6-1992 made by the executive officer of the temple (mookambika temple, kollur) to place respondent 4 under suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against him; that as there are no trustees of the temple, the administrator is exercising the powers of the trustees; therefore, the administrator by the order dated 22-6-1992 has confirmed the action taken by the executive officer on 9-6-1992; that the order dated 22-6-1992 passed by the administrator has not been challenged, therefore, the order of the commissioner is illegal and beyond his jurisdiction and as such it requires to be quashed; that it is the executive officer who has got the disciplinary control over the staff of the temple, that as the archaks are the members of the staff of the temple, the executive officer is competent to place the archaks under suspension; that even if it is considered that it is the administrator who has the power to hold an enquiry and place the archaks under suspension pending enquiry, as the administrator has approved the action taken by the executive officer, the order of suspension must be held to be in force atleast from 22-6-1992.
( 4 ) ON the contrary, it is contended by Sri s. Vijayashankar, learned seniorcounsel appearing for respondent 4 that under section 49 of the Madras hindu religious and charitable endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as the 'act'), read with rule 3 of the Rules framed under section 49 of the Act, it is the trustees or in their absence the administrator alone is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and place the employee (sic) against whom charge is framed under suspension pending enquiry and not the executive officer. It is contended that para 28-a of the scheme has to be read in the light of the provisions contained in section 49 of the act and rule 3 of the rules; that a division bench of this court in w. a. no. 2400/1990, k. Murthy ganesh bhat v Sri mookambika devaru, kollur and another, decided on 6-12-1990, has interpreted para 28-a of the scheme in the same manner as contended by him.
( 5 ) IN order to determine these rival contentions, the facts necessary are no morein dispute. An administrator has been appointed to the temple in question. He is entitled to exercise the powers of the trustees. Respondent 4 is one of the archaks of the temple. On 9-6-1992, the executive officer of the temple passed an order as per annexure-f produced in the writ petition. Under that order, he framed certain charges against respondent 4 and also placed him under suspension pending enquiry. Pursuant to the order dated 9-6-1992 passed by the executive officer, respondent 4 was kept under suspension. The executive officer reported the matter to the administrator, who by the order dated 22-6-1992 approved the action taken by the executive officer. The said order is produced as annexure-g in the w
