ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, on in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension vide Memo in Lr.No.Nil/2021, dated 28.08.2021 issued by the 4th respondent and further directing to hand over the keys of the temple and other articles of jewellery of the deity to Sri Vamaraju Venkateswarlu, son of late Krishna Murthy, who is working as an attender in Sri Chennakevasa and Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Chintalacheruvu village, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District and allowing him to perform archakatvam in the 4th respondent temple and in not paying the salaries of the petitioner from September, 2020, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and contrary to Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and contrary to Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by revoking the suspension order dated 28.08.2021 and pay salary payable to the petitioner from September, 2020 to till date of reinstatement and for all consequential benefits on reinstatement to the petitioner as per Rules in the interest of justice……..” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the 4th respondent temple is a public temple having been published in the year 1990 under Section 6(c)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’) and the temple has got landed property and the deity Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy was worshipped by Sri Vyasaraya Theerthulu of Madhwa cult in ancient times. It is the further case of the petitioner that his great grandfather Sri Narasadasu got the deity and founded the temple by doing Pratista of the deity and had been the hereditary trustee-cum-archaka of the temple and later the petitioner’s father succeeded the trusteeship and archakatvam of the temple and rendered services till his death in the year 1998 and after his death, the petitioner has been performing the archakatvam as hereditary right and the petitioner is being paid salary and also paditaram amount and he was given employee code No.4646. It is the further case of the petitioner that a Trust Board was appointed to the temple and Sri Jakkireddy Subba Reddy was selected as Chairman of the Trust Board and eversince his entry into the office of Trust Board, the Chairman used to harass, insult and humiliate him on one pretext or the other and in that connection in the month of August, 2021, the 4th respondent has given certain instructions to the staff of the temple indicating the timings and duties to be performed on day to day basis. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 16.08.2021, the Trust Board has passed a resolution authorizing the Executive Officer to take appropriate action as per law and for removal of the petitioner from service. It the further case of the petitioner that the Chairman of the Trust Board has made a complaint vide FIR No.305 of 2021, dated 20.08.2021, under Section 506 I.P.C. alleging that on 16.08.2021 at 10.00 a.m. a meeting was conducted in the premises of the temple among the members of the Trust Board and the Chairman has complained against the petitioner about the punctuality of his attendance and upon that the petitioner threatened the complainant with dire consequences before the members of the committee and that the said FIR came to be registered on the direction given by the Court pursuant to a private complaint lodged. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 18.08.2021, the 4th respondent issued a notice making five (05) charges against him indicating that he threatened to kill the Chairman of the Trust Board and behaved irresponsibly in his duties and he does not have the requisite qualifications mentioned in Sec.36(c) & (d) of the Act and even earlier the Executive Officers have recommended for action against him and immediately, he has submitted his explanation on 19.08.2021 requesting to drop the charges and to his surprise the 4th respondent issued the impugned suspension order with a direction to handover the keys of the temple, the articles and jewellery of the deity to Sri Vamaraju Venkateswara Rao, who is now allowed to perform the archakatvam service in the 4th respondent temple. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition for the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition for the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The 4th respondent-Executive Officer filed his counter, along with an application vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, inter alia, disputing the contents of the writ petition, praying this Court to vacate the interim orders dated 03.11.2021 passed in this writ petition. The main stand taken in the said counter is that the alleged charges imputed against the petitioner in memo dated 18.08.2021 are serious and grave in nature and the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending enquiry by memo dated 28.08.2021, taking recourse to Rule 6(1) of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 and the said order of suspension would not stand characterized or be termed as imposition of punishment and the 4th respondent does possess power and competency to place an employee under suspension and it cannot be construed that the order of suspension was passed under Section 37 of the Act and thus the petitioner failed to make out any case and relying on decision in 2006 (3) ALD 161, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent denying the stand taken by the 4th respondent in his counter. In the said reply it is the contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension as in the instant case there is no authorization given to the Executive Officer to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner and that the specific word suspension is also employed in Section 37(1) of the Act and the Rules cannot override the statute and that the decision relied on by the 3rd respondent relates to a secular staff but not a religious office holder and ultimately contended that the petitioner is a religious officer holder and thus the 4th respondent has no power or jurisdiction and it is only the Commissioner that is competent to impose any punishment under Section 37(1) of the Act and accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent. 6. 5. Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent. 6. Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the petition would submit that, the petitioner being a ‘Hereditary Archaka’ is a ‘religious office holder’ and thus the petitioner being neither an ‘office holder’ nor a ‘servant’, do not come within the scope of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the writ petition would further submit that, under Section 37 of the Act, the petitioner being a religious office holder, the Executive Officer has no disciplinary power or authority to place him under suspension pending enquiry and such a power is conferred only upon the Commissioner as per proviso-1 to Section 37(1) and under Section 38(1) of the Act and the Executive Officer cannot usurp such power claiming himself competent empowered by Section 6(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987. Thus, the 4th respondent being incompetent to pass orders, the impugned proceedings placing the petitioner under suspension are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions that Executive Officer has no power or competence to place the petitioner under suspension, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Kondapaka Lakshmi Narasimha Charyulu, Archaka vs. J. Sudhakar, Manager, Sri Laklshmi Narasimha Temple, Devunipally and others, 2007 (2) ALD 569 . 7. On the other hand, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent temple, vehemently argued that the petitioner cannot claim himself to be a ‘religious office holder’ and he being an Archaka of the 4th respondent temple, as per Rule 6(1) of the Office Holders and Servants Punishments Rules, 1987, the 4th respondent/Executive Officer is competent to exercise power to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. In support of his contention that the 4th respondent has jurisdiction to pass impugned order of suspension, the learned Standing counsel placed reliance on the decision in Papu Vennkata Rao v. Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and others, 2006 (3) ALD 161, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. In support of his contention that the 4th respondent has jurisdiction to pass impugned order of suspension, the learned Standing counsel placed reliance on the decision in Papu Vennkata Rao v. Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and others, 2006 (3) ALD 161, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments supported the contentions and arguments so advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent regarding competency of the 4th respondent to place the petitioner under suspension. It is his further contention that the petitioner being Archaka, Section 37(2) of the Act and Rule-6(1) of the Rules confers jurisdiction upon the Executive Officer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against all office holders and servants attached to a charitable and religious institution. The learned Government Pleader further contended that Section 38(1) of the Act vests power to the Commissioner to take action, whenever he noticed any lapses on the part of the Executive Officer in initiating action against the office holders or servants referred to in sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 37 of the Act and this does not mean the Commissioner has only got jurisdiction to initiate action. Hence, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. From the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner is hereditary Archaka of the 4th respondent temple and the executive officer of the 4th respondent temple vide impugned memo in Lr.No.Nil/2021, dated 28.08.2021 has placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. 10. Clause (1) and Clause (15) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘Archaka’ and ‘hereditary office-holder’ respectively in the following terms : (1) ‘archaka’ includes a Pujari, Panda, an Archakatvam Mirasidar or other person, who personally performs or conducts any archana, puja or other ritual: (15) ‘hereditary Office-holder’ means any office-holder including Pedda Jeeyangar, China Jeeyangar, a Mirasidar and an Archaka of a charitable or religious institution or endowment the succession to whose office devolves according to the rule of succession laid down by the founder or according to the usage or custom applicable to the institution or endowment or according to the law of succession for the time being in force, as the case may be; 11. Clause (15) of Section-2 of the Act while defining ‘hereditary officeholder’ in clear and categorical terms includes Archaka of a charitable or religious institution or endowment. 12. Appointment of office holders and servants etc., is dealt with by Section 35 of Act. Sub Section (1) of Section 35 of the Act envisages that every vacancy, whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office holders or servants of a charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be filled by the Trustee. Proviso 1 to Section 35(1) of the Act says that in the case of a charitable or religious institution or endowment whose annual income exceeds Rs. 10 Lakhs, the Executive Officer shall appoint the office holders and servants thereof. 13. It is, thus, clear that the Executive Officer of the temple is the appointing authority and exclusive jurisdiction is vested in him to appoint office holders and servants of a religious institution or endowment whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs per annum. 14. It is an established principle of law that the appointing authority shall always have the requisite power and jurisdiction to exercise disciplinary control over all the office holders and servants and such power of discipline, control shall always include the power to place an office holder or servant under suspension pending inquiry into grave charges or investigation. 15. Whether the Executive Officer had the power, to place hereditary Archaka under suspension pending enquiry is the question, which can be answered only on an examination of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 16. Sections 37 and 38 of the Act deals with the punishment of office holders and servants. For benefit, they are extracted hereunder : “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, disobediance 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 subsection 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. 3[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 subsection (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; (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 subsection (1), the trustee may direct the Executive Officer to take action under subsection (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. 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 penalities 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 subsection (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.” 17. Section 37(1) confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Trustees to deal with the office holders and servants of an institution whose annual income is less than rupees ten lakhs and sub-section (2) confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Executive Officer concerned to deal with office holders or servants of an institution, whose income exceeds rupees ten lakhs. Section 37(1) confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Trustees to deal with the office holders and servants of an institution whose annual income is less than rupees ten lakhs and sub-section (2) confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Executive Officer concerned to deal with office holders or servants of an institution, whose income exceeds rupees ten lakhs. There is a clear delineation of jurisdiction and power between the trustee and the Executive Officer and each have to discharge their respective duty and exercise jurisdiction in their own sphere. 18. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 153 of the Act, the ‘Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987’ were made and notified in G.O.Ms.No.830, Revenue (Endowments-I) dated 18.08.1989. Rule-6 of the punishment Rules reads as under : “6(1) As 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. 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. 7. Every order imposing the penalty, shall be communicated in writing to the office-holder or servant concerned.” 19. Rule 6(1) of the Rules empowers the trustee or the Executive Officer to place an office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges where such suspension is necessary in public interest. 20. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Kondapaka Lakshmi Narasimha Charyulu vs. J. Sudhakar (supra 1), a learned single Judge of High Court of composite state of Andhra Pradesh, at para-6 held as follows : “6. Section 35 of the Endowments Act empowers the Board of Trustees to appoint office holders or servants/Archakas in a religious institution. Section 36 prescribes qualifications for Archakas. The Rules made by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 261, dated 20 May 2002, (The Andhra Pradesh charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endonments Archakas and other office Holders and Servants Qualification and Endowment, Rules) in relation to S. 35(3) of the Endowments Act, prescribed qualification of Archakas and other temple servants. Even as per these Rules, the Government or any officer of the Endowment Department or a Manager is not competent to appoint Archakas. Therefore, one has to fall back on S. 35(1) of the Endowments Act, which empowers only the Board of Trustees or trustee to appoint the Archaka. Therefore, disciplinary action can be taken only by the Board of Trustees or trustee, and not by an executive officer. Therefore, one has to fall back on S. 35(1) of the Endowments Act, which empowers only the Board of Trustees or trustee to appoint the Archaka. Therefore, disciplinary action can be taken only by the Board of Trustees or trustee, and not by an executive officer. In any event, certainly, not by a Manager.” 21. The above decision was delivered on 12.12.2006. However, Section 35 of the Act has been amended by the Act No.33 of 2007, S.10, with effect from 14-12-2007 empowering trustee to appoint office holders or servants/Archakas in a religious institution, whose annual income is less than rupees ten lakhs per annum, and the Executive Officer to appoint office holders or servants/Archakas in a religious institution, whose annual exceeds rupees ten lakhs per annum. Since section 35 of the Act has been amended subsequent to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 22. In the decision relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent temple in Pappu Venkata Rao v. Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad (supra 2), a learned Judge of High Court of composite state of Andhra Pradesh held at Paras-24 & 26 thus : “24. Section 37 confers power on the Trustee and the Executive Officer to impose punishment, which includes suspension as a measure of punishment. In the case on hand, however, the order of suspension is not as a measure of punishment, but is merely an order passed pending enquiry. 25. x x x x 26. …………. It is also well settled that in the absence of any prohibition, any person who exercises some degree of control over an employee, even if he is not the appointing authority, is entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet (P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General, (1993) 1 SCC 419 : AIR 1993 SC 1321 ). The distinction, between issuance of charge-sheet and placing the employee under suspension pending enquiry on the one hand and imposition of punishment on the other, cannot be lost sight of. The distinction, between issuance of charge-sheet and placing the employee under suspension pending enquiry on the one hand and imposition of punishment on the other, cannot be lost sight of. While punishment has necessarily to be imposed by the authority on whom such power is conferred under the Act or the rules made thereunder, insofar as the power, to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry or to frame charges, is concerned, such power, in the absence of any prohibition, can also be exercised by any other appropriate authority, who can be said to exercise some degree of control over the employee concerned. Since Rule 6(1) clearly empowers the Commissioner to place a temple employee under suspension, and inasmuch as the 2nd respondent, on the date on which the impugned order dated 20-7-2005 was issued, was acting under colour of lawful authority, (G.O.Rt. No. 3661 dated 31-5-2005), the impugned chargesheet-cum suspension order dated 20-7-2005 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The writ petition, insofar as it relates to issuance of the chargesheet cum suspension order dated 20-7-2005, fails and is hereby dismissed.” 23. From the above, it is evident that though punishment has necessarily to be imposed by the authority on whom such power is conferred under the Act, in so far as the power to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry or to frame charges, is concerned, such power, in the absence of any prohibition, can also be exercised by any other appropriate authority, who can be said to exercise some degree of control over the employee concerned. 24. In the case on hand, as per Section 35 of the Act, the Executive Officer is the appointing authority of office holders and servants of the temple, endowment or religious institution, whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs per annum and he is the disciplinary authority empowered to impose fine, or order suspension, removal, dismissal or any other prescribed penalty on the office holders and servants as per under section 37(2) of the Act. The scheme of the Act read together with the said Rules would undoubtedly reveal that the Executive Officer is the competent authority to place an office holder or servant of an institution whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs under suspension pending inquiry into grave charges or investigation. 25. The scheme of the Act read together with the said Rules would undoubtedly reveal that the Executive Officer is the competent authority to place an office holder or servant of an institution whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs under suspension pending inquiry into grave charges or investigation. 25. Thus, a combined reading of Sections 35, 37 and 38 of the Act coupled with Rule 6(1) of the Rules would make it clear that exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon the Executive Officer to deal with the office holders and servants of an institution whose annual income exceed rupees ten lakhs and such power to deal with the office holders and servants, includes the power to place them under suspension pending inquiry into the grave charges or investigation in public interest. Section 37(5) of the Act makes it very clear that the office holders or servants, if aggrieved by the action of the Trustee or the Executive Officer, as the case may be, can prefer an appeal to the Commissioner. Thus the Commissioner is the appellate authority but not the disciplinary authority as per Section 37 of the Act. 26. Now coming to the core of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a ‘hereditary archaka’ comes under the definition ‘religious office holder’ and hence he is placed out of ambit and scope of The Office Holders and Servants Punishments Rules, 1987 and thus Commissioner only is competent to exercise jurisdiction and place him under suspension as per proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act. 27. Proviso to Section 37(1) of the Act says that in case of a religious officer 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. 28. Now, in order to answer the above contention raised by the petitioner, it has to be seen whether an ‘archaka’ or ‘hereditary archaka’ stand on parity with ‘religious office holder’. 29. The term ‘religious office holder’ has not been defined in the Act. The said term came to be included in Sections 35 & 37 of the Act, by way of amendment by Act No.33 of 2007 with effect from 14.12.2007. 30. 29. The term ‘religious office holder’ has not been defined in the Act. The said term came to be included in Sections 35 & 37 of the Act, by way of amendment by Act No.33 of 2007 with effect from 14.12.2007. 30. Section 36 of the Act prescribes qualifications for being appointed as or for being an Archaka of a religious institution. For convenience, the same is extracted hereunder : “36. Qualifications for Archaka - A person shall be qualified for being appointed as or for being an Archaka of a religious institution or endowment- (a) if he has passed the Archaka Examination recognised by the Commissioner; (b) if he is not disabled or suffering from any virulent and contagious disease; (c) if he is able to recite vedic mantras and slokas relating to rituals with clarity and without any fault; (d) if he possesses good conduct and character; (e) if he is free from Sapthavyasanams: Explanation:- For purposes of this section, the expression "Sapthavyasanams" means gambling, addiction to intoxicating liquors and drugs, womanising, hunting, stealing, abusing others and jealousy.” 31. The definition of the term ‘Archaka’ includes a Pujari, Panda, an Archakatvam Mirasidar or other person, who personally performs or conducts any archana, puja or other ritual. 32. A conjoint reading of Section 36 of the Act with the definition ‘archaka’ in clause (1) of Section 2 of the Act makes it clear that for being appointed as ‘archaka’, one has to pass Archaka examination among other qualifications and that he has to perform or conduct archana, puja or other rituals. 33. Whereas second proviso to section 35 of the Act, which has been included by the Act No.33 of 2007 with effect from 14-12-2007, says that appointment of religious office holders shall be made keeping in view the Agamas of the respective institutions and preference shall be given to those who are well versed with the Agama, custom and usage of the respective institution. 34. Hence, it is evident that a ‘religious office holder’ need not pass any archaka examination and he need not perform or conduct archana, puja or other ritual as that of an ‘Archaka’. 35. 34. Hence, it is evident that a ‘religious office holder’ need not pass any archaka examination and he need not perform or conduct archana, puja or other ritual as that of an ‘Archaka’. 35. In view of the above, an ‘archaka’ or ‘hereditary archaka’ does not stand on the same footing as that of a ‘religious office holder’, since the qualifications for both of them are entirely different and so also the duties they have to perform and thus it can be safely held that they are two different categories. 36. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be a religious office holder and he is only ‘hereditary archaka’ of the 4th respondent temple. Thus, the Executive Officer of the temple is the appointing as well as disciplinary authority as per Sections 35 & 37(2) of the Act respectively. 37. A combined reading of Sections 35 & 37 of the Act coupled with Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction and power upon the Executive Officer to deal with the office holders and servants of an institution, whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs per annum, and such power includes the power to place them under suspension pending inquiry. 38. In view of the above observations and findings, the Memo in Lr.No.Nil/2021, dated 28.08.2021 issued by the 4th respondent placing the petitioner under suspension impugned in this writ petition does not suffer from any jurisdictional errors and the writ petition deserves dismissal. 39. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim orders grated on 03.11.2021 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed.