Judgment :- This appeal has been directed against the judgment in O.P.No.14 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. Under the said O.P.No.14 of 2000, the appellant herein, as the petitioner, had challenged the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE in br/K/M/e/f/7819-98, 2 dated 31.05.2000. The said order was passed under Section 90(2) of the HR & CE Act, 1959, on the ground that for the Fasli No.1407 the appellant had incurred unnecessary expenditures to the tune of Rs.21,622/- while he was in the Arulmighu Chinna Onkaliamman Temple, during his tenure as Administrative Trustee for the period from 7. 1997 to 30.6.1998. Further allegation against the appellant is that a sum of Rs.1,519/05 belonging to the temple was not deposited in the Bank, but was spent incurring loss of interest to the temple. The learned Principle Subordinate Judge has dismissed the said petition O.P.No.14 of 2000 on two grounds. Firstly the petition was not preferred within the time stipulated under Section 94 of HR & CE Act and the second one is being there is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner / appellant for the said unnecessary expenditures. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that under section 90(3) of the Act within one month from the date of receipt of the order he is entitled to prefer the appeal and that the impugned order of the Manager was signed only on 6. 2000, but the same was served on him only on 6. 2000 and within a month from the date of receipt of copy of the order ie., on 6. 2000 he had preferred the OP before the trial Court on 7. 2000 itself. 2. The learned counsel would further contend that he had filed along with in I.A.No.24 of 2000 in O.P.No.14 of 2000 a memo before the Trial Court the delivery slip issued by the Postal & Telegraphic Department dated 14.07.2000, showing the impugned order was served on him only on 6. 2000, but that was not taken note of by the learned trial judge. 2000, but that was not taken note of by the learned trial judge. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the impugned order was passed in his absence, since the enquiry was conducted on 29.05.2000, and due to personal inconvenience he could not attend the enquiry on 29.05.2000 and that a telegram was sent to the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department on 25. 2000 itself. So under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the appellant to putforth his case before the Joint Commissioner, who had passed the impugned order. 3. In fine, the appeal is allowed and the order passed in O.P.No.14 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administrative Department, Salem, for conducting the enquiry in the presence of the appellant. The appellant shall appear before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administrative Department, Salem, on 9. 2008 at 10.30 am. On his appearance, the Joint Commissioner shall conduct the enquiry afresh and thereupon pass a fresh order. No costs.