ORDER

The petitioner, who is the Chairman, Board of Trustees of Arulmigu Muruga Ayyanar Temple, Veerakudi, Thiruchili Taluk, Virudhunagar District, challenging the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.

876/2012/A1, dated 06.12.2017, filed this Writ Petition.

2.The contention of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent indulged in several activities against the interest of the Temple. Further, on the complaint made to the respondents 1 to 3, the fourth respondent was suspended from the hereditary trustee of the Temple. When the Temple administration called for explanation from the fourth respondent, he has given evasive reply. Therefore, five charges were framed against the fourth respondent under Section 53(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E. Act'']. The fourth respondent refuted the charges by stating that the petitioner/S.Selvarani, one of the hereditary trustees, had, on her own, made complaints against him, his brother, so that they can be removed from the hereditary trusteeship and the petitioner can control the Temple as per her wish. The fourth respondent had not taken away the Temple properties. If any Temple properties identified in his name or in his father's name, the fourth respondent is ready to reconvey the same to the Temple. Further, he had also made allegations against the petitioner in collecting money for Kumbabishekam without issuing receipts. Further, the petitioner after taking over the charge as hereditary trustee, had acquired several properties and accumulated wealth.

3.Admittedly, the petitioner made allegations against the fourth respondent stating that the fourth respondent had obtained Pattas in the name of his father. Further, without informing the Temple, the fourth respondent had collected money from the temporary shops, auction of hair offerings, car parking, daily tickets, not accounted the same to the Temple account and thereby, caused loss to the Temple. Further, whenever the Hundial of the Temple is opened, he would demand that he should be given a share from the Hundial offerings. The fourth respondent had been filing several cases against the Trustee and the Temple Officials. The fourth respondent insisted that he should be made as Chairman, Board of Trustees. Further, charges were framed against the fourth respondent for not attending the Board of Trustees Meetings on several occasions. Further, making complaints against the other hereditary trustees and also against the officials, he had also filed cases in O.S.Nos.60 of

1999, 79 of 2000 and 177 of 2001 against the interest of the Temple. Further, without giving any representation to the second respondent/Joint Commissioner, the fourth respondent had filed W.P.(MD)No.1185 of 2013 for a Mandamus as if he had sent a representation and the same was pending, which was later found to be false and actually, there was no such representation.

4.The first respondent had conducted an enquiry and finding that out of the five charges, three charges were proved against the fourth respondent. One of the proven charges is that the fourth respondent had not participated in the Trust Board Meetings and hence, he should be punished for dereliction of duty. Further, the fourth respondent filed false cases against the petitioner before the Court at Aruppukottai. Finding that three charges were proved, the first respondent had given an opportunity to the fourth respondent to correct himself. Further, considering the undertaking given by the fourth respondent that wherever any property is shown in the name of his father, he would reconvey the property and handover the same to the Temple authorities, his suspension was revoked on a condition that the fourth respondent within a period of three months to correct himself, participate in the Trust Board Meetings and further, he should co-operate with the other hereditary trustees for smooth functioning of the Temple. A