JUDGMENT : K.K.SASIDHARAN, J. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 30 October, 2009, in W.P.(MD)No.7048 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge quashed the punishment imposed on the respondent primarily on the ground that the Executive Officer is only an executing authority bound to implement the orders passed by the Fit Person. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The respondent functioned as the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar and Badrakaliamman Thirukoil, Madapuram, Manamadurai Taluk, in the district of Sivagangai. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for dereliction of duty and loss of revenue to the temple. There were altogether four charges. Since the explanation submitted by the respondent was found to be unsatisfactory, Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer held that charges 1 and 2 were proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the report and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Government. The respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7048 of 2006, challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition primarily on the ground that being an Executive Officer, the respondent has no other option than to implement the order passed by the Fit Person. According to the learned Single Judge, the decision to grant licence for selling ghee lamps without calling for tenders was given by the Fit Person. The respondent, being the subordinate of the Fit Person, was bound to implement the said decision and as such, no charge would lie against him. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have come up with this intra-court appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. DISCUSSION: 5. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department issued a charge memo to the respondent on 03 February, 2004 containing as many as four charges. We are concerned with charges 1 and 2 relating to the licence granted to an individual for selling ghee lamps in the temple. The disciplinary authority alleged that the respondent parted with the privilege of selling ghee lamps in the temple without calling for tenders and thereby, made the temple to suffer loss. We are concerned with charges 1 and 2 relating to the licence granted to an individual for selling ghee lamps in the temple. The disciplinary authority alleged that the respondent parted with the privilege of selling ghee lamps in the temple without calling for tenders and thereby, made the temple to suffer loss. The Enquiry Officer reported that there were materials to sustain charge Nos.1 and 2. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was taken as basic material to impose the punishment on the respondent. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition opining that being an Executive Officer, the respondent is bound to implement the order passed by the Fit Person. 6. The learned Single Judge proceeded as if Fit Person appointed to perform the functions of the Board of Trustees under Section 47(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is the Head of Office of the Executive Officer. 7. The Executive Officer is not a subordinate of either the Board of Trustees or the Fit Person. The Executive Officer is an independent authority appointed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The Commissioner is the disciplinary authority and not the Fit Person or Board of Trustees. The Executive Officer is legally not bound to implement the decisions of the Board of Trustees, in case such decisions were taken in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In short, the Executive Officer is not a rubber stamp. The Executive Officer is bound to comply with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the rules made thereunder. We are, therefore, not in a position to approve the views of the learned Single Judge that the role of Executive Officer is very limited and he is bound to implement the decisions taken by the Board of Trustees/Fit Person. 8. The respondent is well aware that under Rule 11 of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963, the Commissioner is the competent authority to grant lease of any property or any right other than by way of public auction. We are informed that the respondent has sent a proposal to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, to conduct auction to part with the privilege of selling the ghee lamps. We are informed that the respondent has sent a proposal to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, to conduct auction to part with the privilege of selling the ghee lamps. It was only during the currency of the said application, the Fit Person took a decision to grant the lease privately. The respondent acted as a faithful servant of the Fit person and granted the privilege. The disciplinary authority was, therefore, fully justified in initiating proceedings against the respondent. 9. The next question is as to whether we should interfere in the order to impose punishment on the respondent. The charge memo was issued as early as on 03 February, 2004. The disciplinary authority passed final orders imposing punishment on the respondent on 29 November, 2004. The Writ Petition was allowed, by order dated 30 October, 2009. The respondent is still in service. We are, therefore, of the view that a lenient view should be taken in the matter. Discretionary Jurisdiction: 10. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary in nature. It is otherwise called as equity jurisdiction. The Court is not bound to exercise the discretion in favour of a party, merely because law is in his favour. In appropriate cases, it is open to the Court to refuse grant of relief after declaring the law on the subject. The Court can also mould the relief to do substantial justice. 11. The Supreme Court in G.M.,O.N.G.C.Ltd., v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel JT 2005(7) SC 465 observed that it is not always necessary to strike down a wrong decision only because it would be lawful to do so. The Supreme Court said: " 23. It is now well-settled that the High Courts and the Supreme Court while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution as also Article 136 thereof may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India even may not strike down a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the Appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law." 12. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India even may not strike down a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the Appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law." 12. The Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. BajrangiRabidas (2013) 12 Scale 69 held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India being discretionary is not to be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The Supreme Court observed: "17. ...........It is well settled in law that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power of the High Court is required to be exercised “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. In Sangram Singh v. Election Commissioner, Kotah and another, (1995) 2 SCR 1 , it has been observed that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The powers are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion, it must be exercised along recognized lines and not arbitrarily and one of the limitations imposed by the courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in such class of cases unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. That apart, the High court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can always take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances and pass appropriate directions to balance the justice. The jurisdiction being extraordinary it is required to be exercised keeping in mind the principles of equity." 13. Even though we have clarified the law to the effect that the Executive Officer is not bound to implement the decisions taken by the Fit Person in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, we are not interfering with the ultimate order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the punishment. 14. The intra-court appeal is disposed of with the above clarification with regard to the position of Executive Officer. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.