Madras High Court. File
| Photo Credit: K. Pichumani
The Madras High Court has deprecated the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department for not having taken prompt action in 2011 against an Executive Officer (EO) for permitting tenants to put up permanent constructions on temple lands and not taking steps to cancel the patta (revenue document on land ownership) obtained by private individuals for temple properties.
The Second Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Krishnaswamy Govindarajan said that the charges levelled against R. Jayakumar, when he served as the EO of Thiyagaraja Swamy Temple in Tiruvarur in 2011, presented “a classic case of the fence eating the crops” since he had colluded with the tenants and allowed them to usurp valuable temple lands, which he was duty-bound to protect.
Pointing out that the former EO was also accused of unauthorisedly releasing ₹40 lakh of temple funds to a civil contractor, the judges said that “unfortunately, the HR&CE Commissioner at that time did not take the issue seriously,” and sat over the matter despite complaints made by devotees and others. To add salt to the wound, the Commissioner called for a report from the officer against whom allegations had been levelled.
“Sitting on the issue for a prolonged period and allowing illegalities to continue is highly deprecated. The sequence of events proves poor management by the department, with no checks and balances. Only because of complaints by devotees and the Adheenam did the mismanagement come to light, leading to the initiation of action and the dismissal of the EO from service in 2015,” the Bench said.
Authoring the verdict, Justice Govindarajan said that a single judge of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed on the individual and ordered that it should be modified to the denial of promotion for a period of five years. The Bench allowed a State appeal and set aside the single judge’s 2024 order directing the HR&CE department to reinstate the writ petitioner in service.
“Modifying a punishment under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution is legally unsustainable and contrary to service jurisprudence. Having found that mismanagement was committed by the writ petitioner, the only choice available to the authorities was removal from service. In our view, the punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate, and all legal formalities were duly followed prior to issuing the dismissal order,” the Bench concluded.
Published – October 23, 2026 03:50 pm IST