Despite existence of alternative remedy delinquent can invoke jurisdiction u/A 226.

.1. In this writ petition the petitioner, an employee of Arumighu Thillai Kaliamman Thirukovil prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order to the first respondent in N.Ka.No.47 of 1998 Ai, dated 18. 1999, quash the same and forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as clerk in the said temple.

2. As the contentions raised in the writ petition is covered by the various pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court and as the writ petition lies in a narrow compass, this court directed the counsel for the petitioner to serve notice on Mr.R. Balasubramanian, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE). Accordingly the Special Government Pleader who had been served with the notice had entered appearance and also filed counter on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. Heard Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The second respondent is the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Thillai Kaliamman Thirukovil, Chidambaram while the first respondent is the fit person appointed for the said temple. There is some controversy with respect to the very status of the writ petitioner as a clerk in the said Thillai Kaliamman Thirukovil, hereinafter referred to as the ‘temple’ for brevity. However, this Court need not go into the said aspect of the matter in the present writ petition.

.5. The first respondent framed as many as Twelve charges against the writ petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. The petitioner was also placed under suspension. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable and hence the second respondent had chosen to appoint himself as the Enquiry Officer which was ob jected to by the writ petitioner on the ground that it would amount to the second responded judging his own cause. Hence after considering the objections, the first respondent appointee as enquiry officer by proceeding dated 21. 1999. As no further action was being taken, the petitioner was constrained file W.P. 5567 of 1999 challenging the charge memo and this Court by order dated 4. 1999 directed that the first respondent to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings and adjudicate the same within four months from the date of communication of the order. The petitioner also states that he had not been paid subsistence allowance and hence he had to move a contempt application.

6. Subsequently pursuant to the directions issued in the Contempt proceedings as well as the directions made in W.P.No.5667 of 1999, it is alleged that the first respondent had purposely anti dated the final order on 18. 99 as it had been posted only on 28. 1999 with a view to get over the contempt application. By the impugned order dated 18. 1999. the first respondent imposed the penalty of removal from service. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said penalty of removal from service imposed by the first respondent on 18. 1999.

7. As seen from the impugned proceedings the enquiry officer had submitted his report dated 18. 1999 and the impugned order has been passed within three days i.e., on 18. 1999 imposing the penalty of removal from service. The first respondent had not only accepted the findings reported by the Enquiry Officer, but also accepted the penalty proposed by the enquiry officer and by the impugned order imposed the penalty of removal from service.

8. Normally this court would have directed the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal as a statutory appeal is provided against such proceedings imposing the