Temple officer’s dismissal restored over allowing encroachments on temple land and misusing trust funds

R. Jayakumar, an Executive Officer posted at Arulmigu Thiyagaraja Swamy Temple, faced disciplinary proceedings concerning alleged failures to protect temple and Kattalai properties, unauthorised construction and encroachment, financial irregularities in renovation works, and failure to hand over charge.

Nineteen of the charges were found proved, and he was removed from service; his departmental appeal was dismissed.

The writ court set aside the removal but substituted a penalty postponing his first promotion by five years, finding inadequate consideration of the charges by the disciplinary authority.

The Hereditary Trustee and the departmental authorities appealed against that decision.

Whether the Executive Officer had responsibility for managing and safeguarding the Kattalai’s properties and funds, notwithstanding the scheme decree assigning duties to the trustees.

Whether the writ court could set aside the removal penalty and substitute a lesser punishment, and whether removal was disproportionate to the proved charges.

Under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, an Executive Officer’s functions relate to the administration of a religious institution’s properties; Section 45(2), as quoted from T.R. Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, confines assigned powers and duties to property administration.

The Court also referred to Sections 6(16) and 6(17), concerning religious charity and religious endowment, and to Sections 34-A, 34-B, 39 and 43-A.

In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2007) 7 SCC 482, the Supreme Court emphasised that temple properties must be protected from usurpation and misappropriation and that courts have a duty to safeguard such properties.

The Court further held that modifying a disciplinary penalty under Article 226 was legally unsustainable in the circumstances of this case.

The Court read the scheme decree as requiring trustees to manage specified aspects of the Kattalai, while also requiring them to consult the Executive Officer, hand over collected rents and profits to him, and coordinate with him on leases and budgets.

It therefore rejected the contention that responsibility for the properties rested solely with the trustees.

Applying the Act and the temple-property protection principle, the Court treated the proved failures—including alleged encroachments, unauthorised disbursement of renovation funds and failure to protect trust property—as serious breaches of the Executive Officer’s property-management responsibilities.

It concluded that the writ court had wrongly substituted a lesser punishment and that removal was not disproportionate; it also stated that the required legal formalities had been followed.

It allowed both writ appeals, set aside the writ court’s order dated 20 February 2024, and restored the original order of punishment.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.