M. Ramesh Vs. Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam and anr.

M. Ramesh vs Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam and anr.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jul 01, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/444993

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/444993
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.V. Maruthi, J.
Decided On: Jul 01, 1998
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1100 of 1995
Subject: Trusts and Societies
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Trusts and Societies
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Sections 37(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Ramesh

Advocate K.V. Satyanarayana, Adv.

Respondent

Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam and anr.

Advocate Matta Chandrasekhar Rao, S.C. for Endowments for Respondent No. 1 and ;Govt. Pleader for Endowments for Respondent No. 2

Legal References

Acts: Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Sections 37(2)
Reported In: 1998(6)ALT465

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........penalty, or any of them for breach of trust, misappropriation, incapacity, disobedience of orders, misconduct, violation of the code of conduct laid down or neglect of duty assigned by or under this act or other sufficient cause. under sub-section (2) of section 37, the power can be exercised by the executive officer. by exercising the rule making power, the government issued g.o. no. 830 prescribing the nature of punishments that can be imposed, one of which is withholding of increment or promotion. the counsel submits that in view of g.o. no. 830, dated 18-8-1989 prescribing punishment of withholding of increment, the executive officer is not competent to impose a punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect as it is not one of the punishments prescribed under the rules. therefore, the order is without authority of law.4. the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of punishment on the ground that the executive officer is competent to impose the punishment.5. a perusal of g.o.ms. no. 830, dated 18-8-1989 makes it clear that one of the punishments that can be imposed is withholding of increments, but it does not prescribe withholding of increments with cumulative effect. the calcutta high court in food corporation of india v. state of west bengal 1981(2) slr 807 made a distinction between withholding of increment and withholding of increment with cumulative effect and observed that withholding of increment does not include withholding of increment with cumulative effect, and therefore, the order imposing punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect is without jurisdiction and not authorised by law. it follows from the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. however, since the petitioner is found guilty, the matter is remanded to the executive officer for reconsidering the matter in the light of the punishments prescribed under g.o.ms. no. 830 dated.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.V. Maruthi, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Executive Officer dated 24-10-1994 imposing a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Attender in Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Indrakhiladri, Vijayawada. There was a criminal complaint against him in CC No. 146/92. Pending criminal enquiry, a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated. In the disciplinary enquiry he was found guilty and a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on 24-10-1994. On 26-9-1997, he was acquitted in the criminal case. Aggrieved by the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, the servants attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment, shall be under the control of the trustee; and the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure and for reasons to be recorded in writing, impose fine or order suspension, removal, dismissal or any other prescribed penalty, or any of them for breach of trust, misappropriation, incapacity, disobedience of orders, misconduct, violation of the code of conduct laid down or neglect of duty assigned by or under this Act or other sufficient cause. under Sub-section (2) of Section 37, the power can be exercised by the Executive Officer. By exercising the rule making power, the Government issued G.O. No. 830 prescribing the nature of punishments that can be imposed, one of which is withholding of increment or promotion. The Counsel submits that in view of G.O. No. 830, dated 18-8-1989 prescribing punishment of withholding of increment, the Executive Officer is not competent to impose a punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect as it is not one of the punishments prescribed under the rules. Therefore, the order is without authority of law.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondents supported the order of punishment on the ground that the Executive Officer is competent to impose the punishment.

5. A perusal of G.O.Ms. No. 830, dated 18-8-1989 makes it clear that one of the punishments that can be imposed is withholding of increments, but it does not prescribe withholding of increments with cumulative effect. The Calcutta High Court in Food Corporation of India v. State of West Bengal 1981(2) SLR 807 made a distinction between withholding of increment and withholding of increment with cumulative effect and observed that withholding of increment does not include withholding of increment with cumulative effect, and therefore, the order imposing punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect is without jurisdiction and not authorised by law. It follows from the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. However, since the petitioner is found guilty, the matter is remanded to the Executive Officer for reconsidering the matter in the light of the punishments prescribed under G.O.Ms. No. 830 dated 18-8-1989.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and remanded with costs. Advocate fee is Rs. 1,000/-.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1998 Same Parties M. Ramesh vs Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Va... Same Subject Trusts and Societies Same Judge S.V. Maruthi, J. Acts & Sections Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions an...

Trusts and Societies