V.S.Sirpurkar, J.: The appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. In that writ petition, the petitioner who is an employee of the Arulmighu Moongilanai Kamakshi Amman Temple, Theni, had challenged the order dated 29.12.1999 by which he was put under suspension. This order was admittedly passed by the respondent/Executive Officer of that temple. This order was challenged by the original petitioner on the ground that the Executive Officer did not have any powers either to initiate departmental enquiry against the employee like the petitioner nor did he have any power to order the suspension. In that view, the suspension order being without authority was otiose and void ab initio.

3. This contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge who, following his own judgment reported in Nagabushanam, D.K. v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and another, (1999)3 L.W. 349 came to the conclusion that if the said action taken by the Executive Officer is subsequently ratified by the Trustees then, the said order would hold good. It is this judgment which is in challenge before us.

4. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant firstly invites our attention to Sec.56 of the Act which is as under:

“56. Punishment of office holders and servants in religious institutions: (1) All office holders and servants attached to a religious institution or in receipt of any emolument or perquisite therefrom shall be controlled by the Trustee; and the Trustee may after following the prescribed procedure if any, fine, suspend, remove or dismiss any of them for breach of trust, incapacity, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, misconduct or other sufficient cause.

(2) Any office holders or servant punished by a Trustee under Sub-sec.(1) may within one month from the date of the receipt of the order by him, appeal against the order to Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner.”

5. A very look at the language of the section and more particularly of the Sub-sec.(1) would suggest that the office holders and servants attached to the religious institution who receive emoluments or perquisites or otherwise shall be under the control of the Trustee and the Trustee, after following the prescribed procedure, may impose the punishment of fine, suspension, removal or dismissal for the mis-conduct named in that sub-section. Sub-sec.(2) is further clear to confirm this ultimate power in the hands of the Trustee. It provides that from the order passed by the Trustee of punishment, an appeal could lie to the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be. The language of the section therefore is plain and clear and it suggests the authority to award punishment in favour of Trustees. There is no scope of ambiguity in this language and it very plainly suggests that it is the Trustee who is having all the power to award punishment. If the Trustee has been specifically named by the language of the section, then, there would be no justification in trying to interpret this section so as to create this power in some one else than the Trustee. Once a particular authority is named having that power, by necessary implication, all the others are excluded. There would be no way to create that power independently. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly also.

6. This is about the power of the Trustee to punish, with which we are afraid, we are not concerned in the present matter. The present matter pertains to a simple suspension order, which is passed in contemplation of the domestic enquiry. For that purpose, learned counsel for the appellant takes us to the Rules which are framed by G.O.Ms.No.4524, Revenue, dated 5.11.1960. The Rules are called "Punishment of Office-Holders and Servants of Religious Institutions (other than Maths and Specific Endowments attached thereto) Rules. There is no dispute by bot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document