JUDGMENT : Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ch. Krupavanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-Senior Assistant in the 5th respondent temple, challenging his order of suspension vide the proceedings in Rc.No.Nil/2020, dated 11.10.2020. The prayer in the writ petition is reproduced as under : “It is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order of direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not revoking the suspension order dated 11.01.2020 as per the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.830 dated 18.08.1989 and in not paying the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner from January, 2021 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and contrary to Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings dated 11.10.2020 w.e.f. 10.10.2020 as he was trapped by Anti Corruption Bureau on 06.10.2020, but till date any charge memo has not been served and the petitioner is still under suspension though more than 1 ½ year has passed. Any order, exceeding six months period of suspension has also not been passed under proviso to Rule 6(1) of the of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 (for short, “the Rules, 1987”) framed in exercise of the power conferred by Sections 37 and 38 read with Section 153 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act, 1987”), and as such continuance of the suspension beyond six months is illegal. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chowdary vs. Union of India, 2015 Law Suit (SC) 177, as also the judgment dated 23.12.2020 of this Court in W.P.No.19625 of 2020 decided on 23.12.2020 to contend that the charge memo/charge sheet not having been served, even till date, suspension period could not extend beyond three months. 4. 4. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that the Executive Officer passed order of suspension in obedience of the reference mentioned in the order of suspension. He submits that the Commissioner has the power to give directions under Section 38 of the Act, 1987. He however submits that any charge memo has not been issued till date nor any order extending suspension period beyond six months in terms of proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 1987 has been passed. He submits that the petitioner would be entitled only to the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. The court first deals with the submission of the learned standing counsel based on Section 38 of the Act, 1987. 7. It is also relevant to reproduce Section 38 of the Act, 1987 which reads as under:- “38. Power of Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner to punish office-holders etc., in certain cases - (1) Where it is noticed by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction that any office-holder or servant attached to an institution or endowment has not been dealt with suitably by the trustee or the Executive Officer as the case may be under section 37 for any of the lapses specified in sub-section (1) thereof, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, may direct the trustee or the Executive Officer to take action under section 37, failing which the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, may after following the prescribed procedure, impose by an order in writing any of the penalties specified in subsection (1) of that section on such office-holder or servant. (2) Any office holder or servant aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (1) may within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an appeal if such order is passed by- (a) the Commissioner, to the Government; (b) the Deputy Commissioner, to the Commissioner; and (c) the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner; and any order passed in such appeal shall be final. 8. Section 37 of the Act, 1987 reads as under : “37. 8. Section 37 of the Act, 1987 reads as under : “37. Punishment of office holders and servants – (1) All office holders and servants attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment, shall be under the control of the trustee; and the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure and for reasons to be recorded in writing, impose fine, or order suspension, removal, dismissal or any other prescribed penalty, on any of them for breach of trust, misappropriation, incapacity, disobedience of orders, misconduct, violation of the code of conduct laid down or neglect of duty assigned by or under this Act or other sufficient cause. [Provided that in case of a religious office holder, it shall be competent for the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him by an order in writing to impose the penalty of removal or dismissal on a report made by the trustee or Executive Officer, or where there is no executive officer or the trustee as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed.] (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), in the case of an officeholder or servant of an institution or endowment whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs, the power to impose any penalty, specified in that sub-section shall, subject to such restrictions and conditions, as may be laid down by the Government, be exercised by the executive officer after following such procedure as may be prescribed. [Provided that in the case of a religious office holder, it shall be competent for the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him by an order in writing to impose the penalty of removal or dismissal on a report made by the trustee or executive officer or where there is no executive officer or the trustee as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed.] (3) (a) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (1) by the trustee may, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be having jurisdiction, from the order of the trustee; (b) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (2) by the Executive Officer, may within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him prefer an appeal to the trustee. (4) (a) Any office-holder or servant may, within sixty days from the date of receipt by him of the order passed in an appeal filed under clause (a) of subsection (3), prefer a second appeal if such order is made by- (i) the Commissioner, to the Government; (ii) the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, to the Commissioner;1. Omitted the proviso of the Act No.33 of 2007, S.11 (w.e.f. 14-12-2007) 2. Added by the Act No.33 of 2007, S.12 (w.e.f. 14-12-20047) 3. Added by the Act No. 33 of 2007, S.12 (w.e.f. 14-12-2007) (b) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved by an order of the trustee under clause (b) of sub-section (3) may, within sixty days from the date of receipt by him of such order, prefer a second appeal to the Commissioner. Added by the Act No. 33 of 2007, S.12 (w.e.f. 14-12-2007) (b) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved by an order of the trustee under clause (b) of sub-section (3) may, within sixty days from the date of receipt by him of such order, prefer a second appeal to the Commissioner. (5) (a) Where it is noticed by the trustee that any office-holder or servant attached to an institution or endowment has not been dealt with suitably by the Executive Officer under sub-section (2), for any of the lapses specified in sub-section (1), the trustee may direct the Executive Officer to take action under sub-section (2), failing which the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure, impose, by an order in writing any of the penalties specified in sub-section (1); (b) Any office-holder or servant aggrieved an order, passed by the trustee or by the Executive Officer, in pursuance of the direction given under clause (a) may, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner.” 9. Section 38 of the Act, 1987, refers to the power of the Commissioner and all other authorities as mentioned therein, with respect to the exercise of power under Section 37 of the Act, 1987 in the contingencies mentioned under Section 38, i.e. where it is noticed by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction that any office-holder or servant attached to an institution or endowment has not been dealt with suitably by the trustee or the Executive Officer as the case may be under Section 37 for any of the lapses specified in sub-section (1) thereof, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, may direct the trustee or the Executive Officer to take action under Section 37, failing which the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be may also take such action as under Section 37, after following the prescribed procedure. 10. Section 37 of the Act, 1987, provides for the penalties/punishment to be imposed on the office holders and servants after following the prescribed procedure which procedure is under the Rules, 1987. Order of suspension as used under Section 37, is an order of suspension as punishment after following the prescribed procedure. It is not an order of suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. Order of suspension as used under Section 37, is an order of suspension as punishment after following the prescribed procedure. It is not an order of suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. Here, the order of suspension is until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. It is not as punishment after following the prescribed procedure. The submission of the learned standing counsel based on Section 38 of the Act, 1987, is misconceived. 11. Suspension, pending investigation or enquiry is provided by Rule 6 of the Rules, 1987. Rule 6 of Rules, 1987 reads as under : “6. (1) An office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment may be ordered to be under suspension from office or service by the trustee, the Executive Officer, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Regional Joint Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges where such suspension is necessary in public interest : Provided that where the investigation has not been completed and the action proposed to be taken in regard to him has not been completed within a period of six months from the date of suspension, the fact shall be reported to the Government, Commissioner, Regional Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be for orders. The period of suspension shall not, however, exceed six months without the previous orders of the Government in the case of suspension ordered by the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner and of the Commissioner in other cases. Provided further that during the period of suspension he shall be paid, subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules in Chapter-VIII of the Fundamental Rule and Subsidiary Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Government. (2) An Office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the Authority competent to impose the suspension and shall remain under suspension until further orders by such authority. (3) Any order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by the authority by which such order was made or deemed to have been made, or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.” 12. Rule 6 of the Rules, 1987, therefore provides for suspension of an office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment by the trustee, the Executive Officer, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Regional Joint Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges if such suspension is necessary in public interest. Therefore, the authorities mentioned in Sub Rule (1) of Rule 6, may suspend an office holder or servant, pending investigation or enquiry, if it is with respect to grave charges and if suspension is necessary in public interest. The authority while passing an order of suspension has to exercise such power, based on consideration of gravity of charge and necessity to suspend in public interest. If the order is passed by the Executive Officer such satisfaction has to be of the Executive Officer. If the Commissioner is passing the order such satisfaction has to be of the Commissioner. There cannot be an order of suspension on the dictate of or in obedience of any higher authority. 13. In Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 16 SCC 276 , the Hon’ble Supreme court held that in the absence of special provisions as to how the person who is to decide is to proceed, the law will imply no more than that the substantial requirements of justice shall not be violated. He must be given notice when he will proceed with the matter, and he must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of some other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by law, and further that there would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice. 14. In Ajay Kumar Chowdary (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the currency of suspension period should not extend beyond three months if within that period the memorandum of charges/ charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. 14. In Ajay Kumar Chowdary (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the currency of suspension period should not extend beyond three months if within that period the memorandum of charges/ charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. Para 21 of the SCC report reads as under : “14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 15. In W.P.No.19625 of 2020 this Court, placing reliance in Ajay Kumar Chowdary (supra), quashed the suspension order as the charge memo had not been served on the delinquent within three months. 16. Any previous order as contemplated by the proviso to sub rule (1) of rule 6 has not been passed and even six months from the order of suspension have passed. 17. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order of suspension is quashed and the petitioner is held entitled for reinstatement with payment of full salary with effect from the expiry of three months from the order of suspension. 18. 17. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order of suspension is quashed and the petitioner is held entitled for reinstatement with payment of full salary with effect from the expiry of three months from the order of suspension. 18. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith; and pay him full salary for the period with effect from the date after expiry of three months from the date of suspension after adjusting the subsistence allowances, if any, already paid to the petitioner, and if there is no other legal impediment within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of this order before the respondents. With respect to the salary of the suspension period i.e. for three months from the date of order of suspension, the competent authority shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 19. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.