The above Revision petition was filed u/s 21 of the Act against the order dated

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E.ADMN.DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-34. Wednesday the 10 th day of October, Two thousand and Eighteen. Present: Thiru.T.K.Ramachandran, I.A.S., Principal Secretary/ Commissioner. R.P.287/2017 D2 Between S.Vasantha Petitioner And 1.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn.Department, Coimbatore. 2. A.Nellaiappan 6/82/17, Samappa Gounder Layout Kendaiyan, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore Respondents In the matter of Vanabadrakaliamman temple, Thekkampatti, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District. The Revision Petition filed under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) against the order dated of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn.Department, Coimbatore in A.P.No.01/2017 filed u/s.56(2) of the Act. Order in D.Dis.R.P.287/2017 D2 dated: The above Revision petition came up for final hearing before me on in the presence of Thiru.C.Dharmaraj, Counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Upon hearing his arguments and having perused the connected records and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed:- ORDER The above Revision petition was filed u/s 21 of the Act against the order dated of the Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore in A.P.1/2017 filed u/s 56(2) of the Act. 2. The petitioner has stated that she is Hereditary Trustee of the Arulmighu Vanabadrakaliammman temple, Thekkampatti, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore

2 2 District. The Petitioner has framed 18 grave charges against the 2 nd respondent vide notice dated for the grave irregularities, breach of trust, disobedience of orders, neglect of duties and misconduct committed by him in the course of discharging his duties. In the said Notice the 2 nd Respondent was directed to give his explanation in addition to the 14 Charges framed by then Hereditary Trustee of the temple which is pending long before. The 2 nd respondent with a view to drag on the matter demanded some documents vide letter dated , and and finally furnished reply on Since several lakhs of rupees of the temple funds were squandered by the 2 nd respondent without any vouchers, after considering 2 nd respondent s explanation, in exercise of power conferred under section 56(1) of the TN Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959 and in the light of Rule 4 in GO.Ms.No.4524 Revenue dated , placed the 2 nd respondent under suspension on in the interest of public service. Against the said order, the 2 nd Respondent filed an Appeal petition before the 1 st respondent herein on and the same day the 1 st respondent granted a stay and posted the matter for hearing on As per section 56(2) only order of punishment can be appealed, hence the appeal petition is not maintainable. The 1 st respondent misconstrued that the order of the suspension is punishment. Suspension, in the present case, is not a substantive punishment, and it is an interim order pending enquiry proceedings. The previous charges framed by the then Hereditary Trustee were time barred. The petitioner was kept in total dark about the pending disciplinary proceedings against the 2 nd respondent as no records have been handed over by the then Fit Person of the Temple, while the petitioner took charge from him. The petitioner came to know about the pending

3 3 charges only at the eleventh hour. Further under Section 28 of the said Act, the Trustee is bound to administer its affairs and to apply its funds and properties as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with. And also a Trustee shall, be entitled to exercise all powers incidental to the provident and beneficial administration of the religious institution and to do all things necessary for the due performance of duties imposed on him. As such no temple servant should not be allowed to waste or expend the trust funds in a manner which are personal in character and escape unhurt. If he does, it will encourage other servants to do more. The interim order of 1 st respondent caused injury to the Trust. 3. In the counter affidavit, 2 nd respondent has stated that on the verge of retirement i.e., on , the petitioner, suo-motu issued a notice by framing 18 additional charges against the respondent in addition to the earlier charges pending from 2008 onwards, only with the mala-fide intention of preventing peaceful retirement of the second respondent. Though proper reply was given by the respondent, the petitioner for obvious reasons, placed the respondent under suspension, two days before his retirement under Section 56(1) of the TN HR & CE Act. The entire process of suspension of the respondent was against natural justice and rules prescribed for the same. Aggrieved by the orders of the petitioner, the respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the 1 st respondent under Section 56(2) of the TN HR & CE Act. The 1 st respondent considering the nature of the flimsy, fictitious charges granted an order of stay until further orders. The said order has been passed under section 56(1) and therefore the statutory appeal will lie under Section 56(2) of the TN HR & CE Act before the 1 st respondent. The order does not in any place specify or mention that the

4 4 suspension has been made pending enquiry or pending disposal of charges as required under rule 4 framed in G.O.424 Revenue dated Even after the issue of the said order, no date for further enquiry has been fixed. The revision petitioner has passed the order with the malafide intention of preventing the 2 nd respondent from peaceful retirement and to harass him, for no fault of him. In such circumstances, the 1 st respondent has issued an interim order of stay, to protect the interest of the poor innocent employee from the miscarriage of justice. 4. I heard Thiru.C.Dharmaraj, counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Both the petitioner and his counsel were called absent. I perused the relevant records and written arguments filed by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has contended that the Joint Commissioner has no power or Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed against the order of suspension passed by the petitioner, since the order of suspension is not a punishment. 6. The main issue needs to be decided in this Revision petition is whether an appeal is maintainable before the Joint Commissioner against the order passed by the petitioner. She has stated that the 2 nd respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the charges and it is not a substantive punishment hence appeal is not maintainable u/s 56(2) of the Act. In the order dated passed by the petitioner, it was stated that ÂU.bešiya g ÛJ Rk j g l giha 14 F w rh LfS F«òÂjhf Rk j g l 18 F w rh LfS F«, m dh T a gâyiuia ftdkl Áy Mtz fis gçóyid brœj bfh L gçóyid brœa g lâš, KfhªÂu š gy Ïl fëš mt V W bfh L Á a jtwjh v W F ÃLtij V W bfhÿs KoahJ. nky«mt KfhªÂu š fhy«flªj cÿneh f Jl F w rh LfŸ Rk j g LŸsbj W TW»wh. F w rh LfS F«fhy«vJΫã zæ f gléšiy. mtuj KfhªÂu«

5 5 ÂU Âahf Ïšiy. nky«érhuiz el Âdhšjh Rk j g l F w rh LfS F éil fhz KoÍ«. vdnt ã thf ey fuâ 56(1) Ãçé go ÂU.M.bešiya g, fz f K gfš Kjš gâú f«brœa gl»wh. So, it is clear that the above order was passed u/s 56(1) of the Act. Since the order was passed u/s 56(1) of the Act, appeal is maintainable u/s 56(2) of the Act before the Joint Commissioner. 7. Section 56 reads as follows:- (1) All office-holders and servants attached to a religious institution or in receipt of any emolument or perquisite there from shall be controlled by the trustee and the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure, if any, fine, suspend, remove or dismiss any of them for breach of trust, incapacity, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, misconduct or other sufficient cause. (2) Any office-holder or servant punished by a trustee under sub-section (1) may, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order by him, appeal against the order to the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be. 8. Further, in this case, 32 charges were framed against the 2 nd respondent. He has also furnished explanation to the charges and the same was considered and discussed by the petitioner in the order issued by her. Further, if the intention of the petitioner is to place the 2 nd respondent under suspension pending enquiry into the charges, then she ought to have invoke Rule 4 of The punishment of office holders and servants of Religious institution (other than math and specific endowments attached

6 6 thereon) Rules which reads as follows:- Pending disposal of the grave charges against the officer holder or servant, the Trustee may place him under suspension when such suspension is necessary in the interest of public service. In the order dated , it was mentioned that ã thf ey fuâ 56(1) Ãçé go ÂU.M.bešiya g, fz f K gfš Kjš gâú f«brœa gl»wh. gâú f«means dismissal from service not suspension. Since the 2 nd respondent was dismissed from service u/s 56(1) of the Act, the appeal filed by him before the Joint Commissioner u/s 56(2) is maintainable and the stay granted by the Joint Commissioner is well within the authority of the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons stated supra, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner and it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the order dated made in A.P.1/2017 by the Joint Commissioner is hereby confirmed. The Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore is directed to dispose of the Appeal petition within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent herein. The Revision petition is hereby disposed of the with the above directions. /typed to dictation/ /t.c.f.b.o./ Sd./- T.K.Ramachandran Principal Secretary /Commissioner To Superintendent 1. The Petitioners through Thiru. M. Rajamani, Advocate, B-59, Brindavan Nagar, Civil Aerodrome (PO) Coimbatore The 2 nd Respondent through Thiru.C.Dharmaraj, Advocate, M-188, 9 th cross street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41. Copy to

7 7 3. The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn.Department, Coimbatore. (Along with file in A.P.01/2017)- By RPAD 4. The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn.Department, Coimbatore. 5. Extra.