JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. : The appellant in all the aforesaid appeals was the hereditary trustee of Sri Gopinath Dev and Sri Radhakanta Dev Bije, Brahmanapatna under Pipili Police Station in the district of Puri. O.A. No.5 of 1996 was registered on an application filed by one Rama Chandra Sahu and six other respondents of Brahmanpatna making several complaints against the appellant. During pendency of the said application, the Commissioner of Endowment also initiated a suo motu proceeding under Section 28 of OHRE Act registered as O.A. No.7 of 1996. The appellant was placed under suspension by the Commissioner from the year 1996. Ten charges were levelled against the appellant in the suo motu proceeding. The appellant filed a show cause denying the charges except the charge with regard to his absence from the village, utilization of sale proceeds of land in mouza - Puba Sasan for repairing and maintenance of the temple allegedly in violation of any order and in absence of permission granted under Section 19 of the Act. In the suo motu proceeding, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and the appellant examined himself, several documents were filed by both the parties, which were marked as Exts.1 to 6 and Exts. A & B respectively. By order dated 15.07.2003, the Commissioner of Endowments, finding the charges Nos.III & V to have been proved, suspended the appellant for another one year form the date of his order. Two of the applicants in O.A. No.5 of 1996, namely, Bhagirathi Sahu and Paramananda Sahu filed W.P.(C) No.4593 of 2003 before this Court making a grievance that they were not heard and the suo motu proceeding was disposed of and that the punishment of suspension for another one year was insufficient against the appellant. The appellant filed W.P.(C) No.649 of 2004 for a direction to restore the religious institution to him as the hereditary trustee. In the meantime, O.A. No.7 of 2003 was instituted by one Rabindra Behera and others, who are also villagers of Brahmanpatna under Section 28 of the Act. This Court, in the writ application by order dated 04.01.2005 directed the Commissioner of Endowments to club all the three proceedings and hear them analogously. 2.The Commissioner thereafter framed 12 charges. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties and several documents were produced and marked as exhibits. This Court, in the writ application by order dated 04.01.2005 directed the Commissioner of Endowments to club all the three proceedings and hear them analogously. 2.The Commissioner thereafter framed 12 charges. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties and several documents were produced and marked as exhibits. By a common order dated 13.06.2005, the learned Commissioner has held the charges Nos. III, V, VI, VII and X to have been proved and established and directed dismissal of the appellant from the hereditary trusteeship of the institution. The above three appeals under Section 28 of the Act have been filed by the appellant, against the said common order passed in the three different O.As., all the three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Commissioner himself has observed in paragraph-11 of the order that in a previously instituted O.A., being O.A. No.5 of 1993 under Section 42(6) of the Act for modification of the scheme of management before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar, disposed of on 13.05.1997, a finding was recorded that the villagers including the petitioners in that case tried to create problems to the institution even after passing of the injunction order. They are not vacating the possession and that they formed a body and are managing the affairs of the institution without giving notice to the Endowment Department and they have threatened the opposite party (appellant herein). He further found that it is clear that in spite of the order of injunction passed by the learned District Judge, Puri, the villagers did not obey and there was also no police protection available to the opposite party (appellant herein) for which, he left the institution not deliberately but out of fear to his life. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that in view of such finding, it cannot be said that the appellant deserted the institution voluntarily. Learned counsel further stressed upon the fact that Section 28(1) of the Act, which deals with the power of the Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner to suspend, remove or dismiss a trustee, requires certain ingredients to be fulfilled before the authority concerned exercises such jurisdiction. Learned counsel further stressed upon the fact that Section 28(1) of the Act, which deals with the power of the Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner to suspend, remove or dismiss a trustee, requires certain ingredients to be fulfilled before the authority concerned exercises such jurisdiction. If the facts are analyzed, it would be clear that the appellant is not guilty of “persistent default” or committed “wilful disobedience” because of the admitted fact that he left the village in 1988 out of fear and to save his life and that he was suspended in the year 1996 for which, there was no opportunity for him to come back and manage the institution of which, the villagers were in forcible occupation. 5.With regard to the charge Nos. V & VII, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the land measuring Ac.5.89 decimals in mouza - Puba Sasan was sold at the rate of 2,500/- per acre as per the order dated 22.09.1979 passed under Section 19 of the Act. The amount received towards sale proceeds were spent and utilized for construction and repair of the institution. Hence, the same would not amount to any mis-appropriation and at best may be an irregularity in expenditure. With regard to charge No.(VI), learned counsel submitted that the notices issued in various OLR cases, will reveal that the cases were properly looked after by the appellant and he protected the interest of the institution before the authorities under the OLR Act. 6.Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the private-respondents, on the contrary, submitted that taking advantage of his recognized status of a Mahanta of the institution, the appellant started mis-appropriating the movable and immovable properties of the deities for his personal gain and did not take any care of the institution. The reason for the above may be best exemplified by the fact that the appellant belongs to Nihangi Baishnab Cult for which, he became the Mahanta of the institution, being declared by his Guru and also became the hereditary trustee after the demise of the Guru. Under law, in order to become a Mahanta in the Nihangi Baishnab Cult, a person has to be a Bachelor (Brahmachari). Under law, in order to become a Mahanta in the Nihangi Baishnab Cult, a person has to be a Bachelor (Brahmachari). The present appellant, however, after becoming a Mahanta, secretly married to a lady, namely, Bishnupriya and is leading a marital life having children, who are kept at Puri and that was the sole problem for the appellant for which, he remained frequently absent from the case institution and did not care to manage the affairs of the deity properly inasmuch as inevitbly in order to meet his family requirements, misappropriated the funds of the institution. The villagers having come to know of his disqualification to be a Mahanta of the institution, he himself in order to avoid such shameful situation and having knowledge that he is disqualified from holding the Mahantaship/trusteeship, left the institution in the year 1988, when the villagers expressed to disclose his conduct before the Endowment authorities. It was only thereafter, the O.As were filed and the suo motu proceeding was also initiated by the Commissioner of Endowments against the appellant. He further contended that pursuant to the order of this Court passed in the previously filed writ applications, after hearing the parties on merit and being satisfied about the allegations raised by the villagers, on proper enquiry on the charges framed, the Commissioner has rightly passed the order of dismissal/removal of the appellant from the post of hereditary trusteeship. 7.In order to examine whether the learned Commissioner has rightly held that charge Nos. III, V, VI, VII & X have been proved against the appellant, it would be apt to refer to Section 28 of the Act, which deals with the power to suspend, remove or dismiss a trustee. The said provision empowers the Commissioner, in the case of a hereditary trustee and the Assistant Commissioner, in the case of a non-hereditary trustee, to suspend, remove or dismiss the trustee, on the grounds, as mentioned in Section 28 (1) of the Act. The procedure to be followed has been prescribed in Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act. The power of suspending the trustee is provided in Sub-section (3) thereof. The charge Nos. III, V, VI, VII & XI, which have been held to have been proved against the appellant as stated above, are as follows :- “III. Whether the O. Party is in persistent default of submitting Statutory Returns. The power of suspending the trustee is provided in Sub-section (3) thereof. The charge Nos. III, V, VI, VII & XI, which have been held to have been proved against the appellant as stated above, are as follows :- “III. Whether the O. Party is in persistent default of submitting Statutory Returns. V. Whether the O. Party has not deposited the sale-proceeds of the lands of the institution by the order of the Commissioner of Endowments, U/S. 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, to deposit in a Nationalized Bank in the name of the institution and accounted for in the Cash Book. VI. Whether the O. Party in collusion with the tenants has settled the lands in the name of unauthorized possessors of the lands of the institution and in collusion with tenants of the institution has put the institution in loss. VII. Whether the O. Party has alienated the lands of the institution measuring Ac.2.09 decimals of Puba - Sasan at Pipili P.S. entering in illegal agreement. X. Whether the O. Party has acted against the interest of the institution for which local public are dissatisfied as the O. Party is not performing his duties as a trustee.” 8.With regard to charge No. (III), the Commissioner on taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the departmental witnesses in reference to the management file of the institution has rightly found that the appellant has persistently defaulted in submitting the statutory returns and the property register after 1985. With regard to charge Nos. (V) and (VII), the Commissioner as found that by order dated 22.9.1979 in O.A. No.22 of 1979 filed under Section 19 of the Act, the then Commissioner granted permission for sale of Ac.5.89 decimals of land of the institution situated in mouza Puba Sasan fixing the sale consideration at Rs.25000/- per acre with a further direction to deposit the sale proceeds in any schedule bank on long term basis. But the appellant admittedly has not deposited the said sale proceeds and has stated that the same was used for repairing the temple of the institution. The Commissioner, therefore, found that the Trust Board having no authority to overreach the directions issued while granting permission under Section 19 of the Act, the said charge has been proved against the appellant. But the appellant admittedly has not deposited the said sale proceeds and has stated that the same was used for repairing the temple of the institution. The Commissioner, therefore, found that the Trust Board having no authority to overreach the directions issued while granting permission under Section 19 of the Act, the said charge has been proved against the appellant. Similarly in respect of charge No. (VI), from the materials on records, the Commissioner found that the opp.Party admitted the tenancy of some of the encroachers over the land belonging to the institution for which they could get their names recorded in various OLR proceedings causing loss to the institution. On combinedly viewing the charges proved against the appellant and further taking into consideration the records of O.A. Nos.70 and 78 of 2000 filed under Section 19 of the Act by the appellant seeking permission to sell some of the lands of the institution, the Commissioner found that the opp.party having admitted to have left the institution in 1988 and that after he left the institution, he went to Rahasbadi Math at Nimapara and stayed there being its hereditary trustee inasmuch as he was suspended pursuant to the orders passed in O.A. No.2 of 1993, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the appellant has acted against the interest of the institution which was charge No. (X) framed against him. 9.This Court on scrutinizing the evidence on record also finds that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner of Endowments in the impugned order is neither illegal nor contrary to the materials available on record and calls for no interference. Hence, all the three appeals being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Appeal dismissed.