Appeal v. pa m o U n n t J

Petition ur'de'Section 151 cpc praying that in the circ.umrtirnces stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court ma., be pleased to permit the pelitir:ne r to perform his duties as Paricharika by s tspending the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in Rc . No. 0'lS.[4 tU ] T/2023, dated 71212023 in ther inte-est of justice, pending dispo sal of the a 3ov( ,r/rit petition in interest of justir;e lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unrrer Siection i 51 cpc praying that in the circLrmsra rces stated in the affidavit file,d in 5gpport of the petition, the High Court nay t,e.pleased to receive the additiona (rocuments Annexure p-g to p-11 in rhe ir)ter( sr of justice- Counsel for the p,atitioner: SRI p.SHASHI KIRAN Counsel for the R,esoondent Nos.1 TO S: AGp iOR eruOOWtvtEwt S Counsel for the R,:s6rc,ndent No.4: Snl l.n.ftAaf.fdiin neO, SC F lR counset ror rhe Resp,ondent No.S: sRr D.JAGTNDflHIot$l.or" Counsel for the Respondent No.7: AGp FOR H6Mi uounset lor the Respondent No.6: _ The Court made the f ollow;ng. ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w RIT PETITIO No. 24 4t4 of 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments' aPPearlng on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, tearned respondent No.4, stand.ngCounselforEndowments,appearingonbehalfof Sri D. Jagan Mohan ReddY' learned on behalf of resPondent No'5 and Government Pleader for Home' counsel aPPearing learned Assistant appearing on behalf of respondent No'7' 2 e e iti ne a r c dt u e in r as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in -/-2-2023 placing the Rc.No' oUSM 'M'i'T/2O23' dated petitioner under suspension without initiating the enquiry or concluding the same on baseless charges framed as a counterblasttotheComplaintsfiledagainsthimforabusing being illegal, arbitrary, colorable his official Power as violative of Articles 1-4 , 19 and 2t of exercise of Power and India and contrarY to Provisions the Constitution of -I 2 SN .I v,I.l I r l0ll env segel in The Telangana Civil Services (CC.&,\) 1ules, 1991 ar d the Telangana State Charitable ard Hindu ReliSious Institutions and Endowments Act, 791i) and con:;erluerrtly to set aside the same in 1,he interr:st of j ust cer arrcl pass...".

3. The <:ase of the petitioner, in brief, is that the F etitioner had beer serving as a priest in Lord Shri tt4uraManoh a - Swamy temple s n(:e 2C00 and has been residing with his f.:nri y within the accom 'r'rc dation provided by the temple authorities. On

04.O5.2022 tf r€, petitioner made a detailed represe-lt,at c n to the respondents hiqhlighting the damage caused to the pre r ises due to unforeseeo heavy rain. However, the sarne, v/as not consider€d, 1-he: respondent Nos.3 to 6 have been ndr- lrling into several irregu arities and are utilizing the temple and it:; lroperty for their rersc,ral benefits and also demolished the cr:r trtries old monumerrterl st-uctures existing in the temple prefitise:; for their personal noecs, Further, the 4th respondent and the clerk of temple were llegally extracting money from the pet tioner on account of r, arious reasons such as HRA, IT re .L rns for implemertinq pay revision, for releasing salar\/ withorrt issuing any receilt:;. ,\r]grikeved by the same, the son of t ht. t.titioner J SN, wP 24414 _202 J 3 lodged a comPlaint on 17.O2.2022 before the police Bahadurpura against the respondents' illegal acts' It is further case of the petltioner that the 4th 3 (il. respondent issued Memos' in Lr'No'249/5'M'M'S'T/2022' dated 16.5.2022 and Lr.No 250/S'M 'M'S'r/2022' dated 16'5'2022 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of more than one lakh fifty thousand rupees, otherwise the petitioner will be thrown out from the temple premises' In pursuance of the said Memos' the petitloner approached the Court by filing W'P' Nos'23946 of 2022 ano W.P. No. 23947 of 2022 and this Court granted status u u ne s N .4i e o quo. Th c s s 2 23 d d 7 2 2 e iti er un er u e lo w h t nit n d he e ile e la at n 2 to h 2nd f d nt. c id re A ched the Co rt bv fitinq the rl v b h Fu h t iti ner ub 1 3 2 o4 5 H we er h a t sa me hepetition s it n r DT a E s T E E ORD 4 -1 s\ l \\t) ll.1,t trr.l 4 contends T hr: learned counsel appearing on bcthalt, of t re petitioner subrr its; that the charges levelled against the )otitioner are basel,:s; and in fact the charges ARE framr:d as a c)unter blast to tho ()orll)laints filed by the children of :he petr licner herein agains;t c€,rtain officials, who abused their oifi :ial powers. The lea rnr:<i counsel FUrther l_hat lh e order of susper si,)n issued to the petitioner by the: 4r, r€ s londent rs dated rl7.O., 2023 and that the period of two years had already elapsec ancl therefore the disciplinary proceed jnqs continu'3d arrlr further and the same need to be set there h;rd bere'n no progress in the enquiry initiatt:d v "l0.t1t and the action of the respondents; in discjprinilry p.r>ceedings against the petitioner on tri\/i. leveled agarrrs;t the petitioner is unwarranted. Th counser appea-ing on beharf oF the petitioner decision in Ai.rv Ku ar ch udha and Others _of u r rt of No.1 912 o'l_0 15 a nd arrs, go uto 20 l3 datecl 1 .o2 .2o1 sa mel s e trar dh reu nd er lelie J on the n of Inclia (UOJ) a No 14 and the : lea rned :annot be 'ey back in a side since the year- sLP c) lchargers 1767 of continuing _Appeal Vs. m o U n n t J 5 SN. J wP 21414 2023 "14. We, therefore, direct that the Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent office r/em ployee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universa lly recognized princip le of human diqnitv a rioht to a soeedv trial and shall also Dre erve the interest of he Government in the rosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us". DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 placing reliance on Section 37 of The Telangana ) 6 Y] \\ | \\ I) lJ t t.l lot l ^/ments Charitable and Hindu Rerigious Institutions arrd Erdo Act, 1987 (Ar t Irlrt.30 of 1987) contends that the pr:titiorrer has an alternative lemedy i.e., to prefer an appeal t,t the trl:;tee within the stiprulat<:cl period as provided under Secti,)n :7 ( il(b) of The Telangtrn,r Charitable and Hindu Religiou5; Institulions and Endowrnent:; Act, 1987.

6. On th: other hand, the learned counsel ap >eraring on behalf Df th 3 petitioner contends that in the count,rr affidavit filed on br:h; ll' of the respondents, the respondents ,liJ not state that the prel;€rnt Wp is not maintainable on the g -our c that the petition{lr h,as an alternative remedy under Sectiorr :l; r3) (b) of the Tel;rnqarrzr Charitable and Hindu Religions Instit rtions and Endownents Act, 1987, and therefore the saic plrr;r at this length of tinr: i.e. in the month of April, 2025 is not sustainable and con:e,rds :hat the writ petition has to be ;rllovued as prayed fo r.

7. This Cotrrt opines that the ptea put f,orttr by the learned c,ounset appearing on behalf of the reslr<tndents insofar as the petitioner availing the alternate rernedy at this length of time is not admissibte taking into .'---*_il-=r.1F.:*-..--- 'l:.i ffi;l 7 SN, J wP 24114 2023 consideration the hardship faced by the petitioner for the last two years and the petitioner is entitled for relief of reconsiderataon of the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent, dated O7.02.2023 as per the observations of the Apex Court in Aiav Kum ar Choudharv Vs. Union of India (UOI ) and Others of Su oreme Court of India in Civil ADDeal No.1912 of 2015 and (arisin o out of SLP (c) No.3176 of 2O13 dated 15.O 2.20L5 8 Takinq into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, (c) The impugned Proceedings vide Rc.No.O1,/S.M.M.S.T/2023, dated 07.O2.2O23 issued to the petitioner herein by the 4th respondent, (d) The fact that the said proceedings had been pending since O7.O2.2023 without any progress as on date, I I 8 \I s\. I U'P 211tt :(rlt Ih,e writ petition !s allowed. The rs5;xyn6ents are directed tlo reconsider the proceedings issugd by the 4th respond{-,nt vade Rc.No.OllS. M.M.S.T / 2A23, dated 07.O2.2O23 ptacing the petitioner uncter r;uspension withotrt nitiating any enquiry as on date an(.' continuing the said ;rroceedings as on date without any progress, by duly conr;idering the observations made in rt:hre case of Ajay K.r6167 choudhary (supra) in particurar para No.14 (referred to and extracted above) and pass irltpropriate orders ,uvitfrin a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt o'F this order, duly taking into corrs;ideration petitioner's detaired expranation, dated 16.03,1ro23 and O4.O5.202:l of the petitioner addressed tc the 2nd responden.t herein and duly communicate the ctecision to the petil:io ner. However, there shall be no or der as to costs. As; . sequel, the miscellaneoLs any penCi,tq, in the Writ petition shall also stand close,l pe1 it ions, if //TRUE COPYII SD/- S, M{,LIKA RJUNA RAO ASSlS'rANf REGISTRAR - "' -t j f F#d#i #:H"T:ffi:;:: r; T llH' ii";,}5ffi r llf; ,'fr,;llili,{[$;[rr,x,,fixr*:"',irfl iT:?[[y,].,q:?t:tt,nn, Ii To 1 2 3 4. ..'/ .r* l..r: -l: " '.,)l|rt!ll,.i1. &&e kir"tteerir&,i-',; 'l T : I \

5. The Station House Officer, Bahadurpura Police Station. Hyderabad-64. 6. One CC to SRI P.SHASHI KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court for the State of Telangana, I at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. OnsCC to SRI ].R.IVANOHAR RAO, SC FOR ENDOWMENT IOPUCI 9. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

10.O-ne CC to SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 'l1.Two CD Copies PSK. I :,, . .*^-: i-:r*,t itn, HIGH COURl' DATED:02104/2025 t t CC TODAY , I ORDER WP.No.24414 af 2023 4z Y-' =?72 rf tr S fA 'il Jr IlN '.2 (. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS ( (- ? 10 o