Arulmigu Gopalakrishnaswamy Etc Temples v. The Joint Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)No.14328 of 2023 Arulmigu Gopalakrishnaswamy Etc Temples, represented by its Managing Trustee, Meena D.Bhattacharya, Krishnapuram, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.

... Petitioner vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tuticorin.

2.S.Kalaivanan ... Respondents 1/9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in A.P.No.2 of 2022, dated 15.03.2023 and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.AV.Soma Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan For R1 : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.S.Ram Sundar Vijayraj *****

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in A.P.No.2 of 2022, dated 15.03.2023.

2. The petitioner temple is coming under the provisions of the 2/9

HR&CE Act. The 2nd respondent was appointed by the Commissioner of HR and CE on 20.09.2011 as Clerk on consolidated basis. The contention of the temple is that the Commissioner himself is not having any power to appoint any person to the religious institutions directly. The allegation against the 2nd respondent by the temple is that the 2nd respondent is not doing any work in the temple or office. He shows disobedience and disrespect to the managing trustees and shows adamant attitude. Further, he has committed certain irregularities, hence, the temple suspended the 2nd respondent on 29.03.2014. The 2nd respondent approached the Joint Commissioner and obtained stay on 07.04.2014. Based on the said order, the 2nd respondent was permitted to join on 08.04.2014 and he worked till 04.09.2014. Thereafter, he absented from the service without due intimation to the petitioner. Hence, the temple 3/9

issued notice to the 2nd respondent to join the service.

3. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent approached the Joint Commissioner after a lapse of 3 years who revoked the suspension order on 19.05.2017. Then the Executive Officer of the temple issued a letter, dated 31.07.2017, directing the 2nd respondent to join duty again. The 2nd respondent did not report for work. Thereafter, the petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings and finally 2nd respondent was dismissed from service on 09.02.2019. The 2nd respondent challenged the same and filed W.P.(MD)No.5354 of 2018 and on 12.03.2018, the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, he approached the 1st respondent after a delay of 462 days. The 2nd respondent is not having any power to condone the delay or to grant any interim order. The 1st respondent passed the 4/9

impugned order setting aside the dismissal order without granting opportunity to the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the temple is before this Court.

4.The contention of the temple is that the 2nd respondent regularly absented himself from duty. Moreover, he has ill-treated a woman trustee and has used abusive language against her. Therefore, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to file an affidavit tendering unconditional apology and the 2nd respondent has filed the same. Accepting the said affidavit this Court directing the 2nd respondent not to indulge in such activity in future.

5. It is seen from the records that the relationship between the temple and the 2nd respondent is strained. If the 2nd respondent is retained 5/9

in service in the petitioner temple, the parties will indulge in litigation and it will affect the smooth functioning of the temple. Therefore, in order to resolve this issue, this Court has directed the 1st respondent to submit the list of temples indicating available vacancy, so that the 2nd respondent can be accommodated in the said vacancy.

6. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent has given list of the temples where vacancy is available. The 2nd respondent can be accommodated in the temple mention in Serial No. 4 namely Nachadai Thavirtharuliya Swamy temple, Devathanam, Virudhunagar. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to issue appointment order to the 2nd respondent, appointing in the 4th temple in the list. The 2nd respondent is 6/9

entitled to continuity of service but not entitled to any backwages. Therefore, confirming the impugned order of setting aside of the dismissal order, this Court is modifying the impugned order to the extent stated supra.

7. With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 31.07.2023 Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No Tmg 7/9

To The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tuticorin.

8/9

S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg 31.07.2023 9/9