Consideration of nature of charges necessary.

The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri Chennaroyaperumal Temple Pagallpatty village. His right as a hereditary trustee is not in question. Sometime in January 1961, certain charges were framed against him and he was asked to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Thereafter, on 15th February, 1961, the enquiry into those charges was posted to the 22nd April, 1961, and he was asked to be present. On that date it was again re-posted to the 30th of May, 1961, and again to the 2nd of August, 1961. These adjournments were presumably for administrative reasons. On 7th July, 1961, the Deputy Commissioner purported to make an order, which is under challenge in this writ petition, placing the trustee petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the charges and at the same time, he appointed the Executive Officer of another temple as a fit person to discharge the functions of the hereditary trustee. In this writ petition, the order so placing him under suspension and appointing a fit person is attacked as illegal and ultra vires. It is claimed that the Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction, the more so for the reason that none of the charges framed against the petitioner fell within the scope of the several heads of shorte comings set out in section 53 (2)of the Act, inviting disciplinary action and in respect of which it is competent to the authorities to punish a trustee by suspension, removal or dismissal. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to appoint a stranger and that if any fit person should at all be appointed the principle of section 54 (2)of the Act should have been followed.

On behalf of the respondent Deputy Commissioner, the fact that the charges were framed on 24th January, 1961 or that the enquiry was being adjourned from time to time is not denied. It is, however, claimed that the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to appoint a fit person under section 53 (4)of the Act pending enquiry into the charges. It is also denied that there is any need to give any notice to the trustee petitioner in respect of appointment of a fit person, which is only for the purpose of interim management till the disposal of the enquiry.

It may be mentioned that the charges that have been framed against the petitioner are that he had not submitted the budget estimate, that he had not prepared and submitted the registers of properties of the temple, that he failed to produce the accounts of the temple for inspection and that he failed to remit the arrears of contribution and audit fees. In my opinion, the nature of the charges have some bearing upon the question whether a trustee against whom charges have been framed should be suspended pending disposal of the charges or not.

There is undoubted jurisdiction conferred upon the authorities to suspend a trustee pending disposal of the charges against him. In the instant case, though the charges were framed in January, 1961, the authorities do not seem to have taken the view that the continuance of the trustee in charge of the temple was not in any way detrimental to the interests of the temple. After the enquiry had been posted and re-posted to several dates, and more than six months after the framing of the charges against the trustee, the Deputy Commissioner purported to place the petitioner under suspension in exercise of his powers under section 53 (4). One is entitled to take note of the underlying purpose of the power that is conferred by this provision upon the Deputy Commissioner. It is that, in proper cases the interests of the temple should not be jeopardised by a person who had been found to have committed acts which would endanger the interests of the temple; for instance, suppose the charge against the trustee had been that the had failed to obtain permission for absenting himself, or some such trivial ground, it would be impossible to accept the position that, pending the enquiry into su