JUDGMENT : The petitioner, while working as the Manager of Sree Vairamkode Bhagavathi Devaswom, Thirunavaya, was placed under suspension by Ext.P3 order pending enquiry. The order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing R.P.No.15/2024. Ext.P4 is the memo of charges issued to the petitioner and Ext.P5 is the reply submitted by the petitioner. By Ext.P6, the period of suspension was extended. 2. The 2 nd respondent passed Ext.P7 interim order in R.P.No.15/2024 directing payment of subsistence allowance. However, the 5 th respondent did not comply with the directions in Ext.P7. By Ext.P8 order dated 21.03.2025, the 2 nd respondent allowed R.P.No.15/2024, set aside the order of suspension and directed the Executive Officer to reinstate the petitioner pending disciplinary action. Though the petitioner approached the 5 th respondent for reinstatement, he was not reinstated. The petitioner submits that the 5 th respondent had kept himself away from the Temple in order to avoid reinstating the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon approached the 4 th respondent requesting to take appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the order of reinstatement issued by the Commissioner. The petitioner again approached the Commissioner pointing out that the 5 th respondent is refusing to comply with the directions to reinstate. The petitioner has produced several other communications to show that he has been approaching the respondents for the purpose of reinstatement. Petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) No.16748/2025. The 5 th respondent also filed WP(C) No.13095/2025. The writ petition filed by the 5 th respondent was thereafter withdrawn for the reason that statutory revision preferred against the order of the Commissioner is pending before the State Government. The 6 th respondent thereafter issued Ext.P23 setting aside the order of the Commissioner finding that the order of suspension has to be challenged in an appeal under Section 49(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and a revision petition under Section 18 of the Act is not maintainable. It is challenging Ext.P23 that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Section 49 of the Act is extracted below: “49. Punishment of office-holders and servants in religious Institutions. It is challenging Ext.P23 that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Section 49 of the Act is extracted below: “49. Punishment of office-holders and servants in religious Institutions. (1) All office-holders and servants attached to a religious institution or in receipt of any emolument or perquisite therefrom shall, whether the office or service is hereditary or not, be controlled by the trustee; and the trustee may, after following the prescribed procedure, if any, fine, suspend, remove or dismiss any of them for breach of trust, incapacity, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, misconduct or other sufficient cause. (2) Any office-holder or servant punished by a trustee under sub-section (1) may, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order by him, appeal against the order to the Deputy Commissioner. (3) A hereditary office-holder or servant may, within one month from the date of the receipt by him of the order of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2), prefer an appeal to the Commissioner against such order. “ Section 49 speaks about an appeal against an order of punishment issued under Section 49(1) of the said Act. The above provision has been relied on in Ext.P23 to say that a revision under Section 18 is not maintainable before the Commissioner against an order of suspension pending an enquiry. The above conclusion in Ext.P23 is wrong. Section 49(1) of the Act while prescribing with punishments, treats suspension also as a punishment which can be ordered after following the procedure prescribed. 4. The procedure has been prescribed under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules, as “Rules under Section 49”. Rule 1 says that no order imposing any punishment other than a fine under sub-section (1) of Section 49 shall be made, without notice to the employee, on the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken, and without affording an adequate opportunity to defend himself. What is contemplated is a full fledged enquiry. Rule 3 thereunder provides for placing the employee under suspension pending an enquiry. Such a suspension cannot be treated as a punishment. A reading of Ext.P3 clearly shows that what was ordered was a suspension pending enquiry which can only be one issued under Rule 3. As such, it will not come within the purview of Section 49(2). It is on that basis the Commissioner has directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Such a suspension cannot be treated as a punishment. A reading of Ext.P3 clearly shows that what was ordered was a suspension pending enquiry which can only be one issued under Rule 3. As such, it will not come within the purview of Section 49(2). It is on that basis the Commissioner has directed reinstatement of the petitioner. It is clear from the documents produced that memo of charges has been issued and the enquiry is also progressing. 5. In the above circumstances, I find no reason to keep the petitioner out of service under suspension even after an order has been rightly passed by the Commissioner directing reinstatement. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P23 is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. Respondents 1 to 4 shall ensure that this judgment is given effect to.