CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, tumkur District in charge of Muzrai Institutions, bearing the date 5-6-1982 by which he was removed from the office of the Archak of Sri. Adeswaraswamy temple in Gubbi. He preferred an appeal against the order to the Karnataka Appellate tribunal which came to be dismissed. ( 2 ) THE only ground urged before the appellate Tribunal was that he had no adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses at the enquiry held by the assistant Commissioner and that the deputy Commissioner did not have the power to delegate his authority to enquire to the Assistant Commissioner and therefore the procedure followed was contrary of Section 32 and 33 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act and that the order was liable to be set aside. ( 3 ) THIS was negatived by the Tribunal having regard to the plain language of Section 32 and 33. Section 32 clearly provides for an enquiry being made by the Assistant Commissioner himself or enquiry caused to be made by him. Similarly section 33 empowers him to call for the report and act on that report either after making further enquiry or without further enquiry. ( 4 ) MR. Hosmath, does not dispute that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. He however contends that having regard to Section 18 of the Mysore religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1927, the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have removed the Archak from service without the prior sanction of government. Removal of Archak is not one of the matters mentioned in Section 18. Appointment of Archak admittedly is by the Deputy Commissioner. At an earlier point of time if on such specific charge of mis-conduct and mis-management as evidenced by the show cause notice at Annexure-C he has been removed from office in public interest as well as in the interest of the ancient manuscripts and idols etc. , kept in the temple, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to remove the appointed person when he has found that the appointed person has not discharged his duties for which he was so appointed. Petition is misconceived, it is rejected. Writ petition is rejected. --- *** --- .