The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, represented by its principal Secretary. Endowment Department. Secrelariai, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Endowment, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. Sri RajaRajeshwari Swamy_Devasthanam,, Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District, Represented by its-Executive Ofiii:r. - - -"-" ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issuance of writ, order, or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of [\rrandamus to decrare the action of the. Respondent No.3 in imposing punishment of penarty of withhording one annuar grade increment with cumurative effect for a period of one year besides recover of Rs.B0,5g2l- vide proceedings in R-c.No.A21123112021 dt. 22-05-2024 is iilegar and arbitrary and arso discriminatory and violative of the Rules and Regulations framed under Act 30/g7 of the Endowments Act and consequenfly direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to cancel the punishment imposed on the petitioner and promote him to next higher post. "!AXgil-9E29aq Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in R.c.No.A2 11231t2\21dt.22-05'2)24 issued by the 3rd Respondent by directing him to promote the petitioner kr the post of senior Assistant forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHASHANK GARIGE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR ENDOV\TMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH. SATISH KUMAII' SC The Court made the following: ORDER v THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2O735 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. Shashank Garige, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. CH. Satish Kumar, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.3 Temple and perused the material available on record.

2. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Watchman cum helper on permanent basis in the 3'd respondent Temple and joined as such on 14-10-1999. Thereafter, he was promoted as Record Assistant on 24-12-2012 and again as Junior A.ssistant on 20-09-2015 and worked as such in the

3.d respondent Temple without anv adverse remarks from his superior officers. While he rvas working in 3rd respondent Temple, he was posted as Junior Assistant in Prasadam Preparation Section from O2- 06-2021 to l5-O4-2O22. Subsequently, he was transferred as Junior Assistant to Sri Lakshimi Narsimha Swamy Devasthanam and joined as such on OT -O8-2O24 and since then he was working at the said temple.

3. tt is further submitted that the petitioner while working as Junior assistant in

3.d r:espondent temple, an lnspectlon was I I I I l l I conducted by the vigilance and Enforcement Dep,a11msn1 on 12_lO_ 2o2 1. During the inspection the vigilance and e,forcement ofhcials identified a shortage in laddus weighment. In this :_egard the vigilance and enforcement department recorded the petitioner,s statement in which he has categorically stated that 31 worl:ers were engaged through outsourcing for preparation and packing of laddu, pulihora Prasadam. Laddu and pulihora prasadams are be ng weighed before sending them to sale counters and the same were ltrepared manually as such there will be stight difference in weight lnd the weight of laddus with moisture will be more than the hxed qtantity as they will be less day by day by drying up.

4. It is iurther submitted that, though the peti _ioner,s statement was recorded and u,ithout considering his statemr:nt, the Vigilance and Enforcement ofrrcials rebutted his statement an,i issued vig aace report and in pursuar,i to the vigilance and enrorcement No.06(C.No. t320 IveD/D2 /2C 19&C.No. 14r4 /v&D In1/2o2t, dt.03- O2-2O22, the 3'd respondent initiated departme rtal proceedings against ttre petitioner and one Sri B. Thirupathi Rao, Superintendent by framing Articles of charges. After framing of Articles of Charges, the petitioner was called for with his explanation and accordingly he has submitted his explanation. On O 1-O6-2022 reiterating the made befor€ contents made in the statement report thr: Vigilance and It is further submitted thal , even thereafter Enforcement Depa rtmenl . t / \ \- a departmental enquiry was conducted by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department Hyderabad and after concluding the departmental enquiry, the Regional Joint Commissioner submitted his report dt.3O-09-2O23' In the said report the charges framed against the petitioner and B' Thirupathi Rao Superintendent are Proved. It is further submitted that, in pursuant to the said report 5. dt.3O-09-2O23, the 3'd respondent vide proceedings in RC.No.A2/ 1231 /2021 dt.22-O5-2O24 imposed punishment of penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year besides recovery of Rs'80,592/- against the petitioner and recovery of Rs. 1,88,O48/- only against B'Thirpathi Rao superintendent. The said amount of Rs.8O,592/- was paid by the No.002356 dt.29-O8-2O24 to the 3'd petitioner vide ReceiPt by the proceedings issued by the 3'd respondent. Aggrieved respondentdt.22-o5-2o24,thepetitionerFrledanappealbeforethe2"d respondent on 18-06-2Cl24. But, till today, the respondent authorities neither accepted the appeal nor rejected the appeal' Hence' the present writ Petition is hled. l.earned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 6. submitted that they would consider and dispose of the appeal dated 18.06.2024, sutrmitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders' in accordance with law, within a stipulated time' \

7. Having considered the submissions mad<: by the learned counsel for both the parties, without going into the merits of the case, the 2"d respondent authority is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal dated 18.06.2024, submitted by the pelitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8 With the above direction, this Writ petition is ,1[5ps566 of, at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand ciosed. SD/.K. SREERAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE cTto OFFICER The Princioal Secretarv Fndowment Department, Sec retariat, The State of Telanqana, Hvderabad.' The Commissioner of Endowment, Boggulakunta, Hyd,)rabad. r.he Executive off i cer, S ri Brj{ nipifi ,i,i;'i;;; y'6; .'- vrrqiri' ev Vemutawada, Rajanna Sirciilj Distii;a gne qq to Sri Shashank Gariqe. Advocate tOpr tct Two CCs to Gp for EnaowmeiG, Htli6;,i6r;r; S.are ot Tetansana, at Hyderabad [OUTI One CC to Sri CH. Satish Kumar, SC tOpUCl Two CD Copies sth a na m,, "r To, 2 3 4 5 7. TJ rKS- \d- , I ,/.' e 1 LPES u2 5 a p r";p,t ,tt i/ HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ORDER WP.No.20735 of 2025 -)() lr. '\'t'\. *\t\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A \xaa5 \o