Court affirms disciplinary inquiry under Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002; mandates implementation of unified, tamper-proof electronic financial systems to prevent misappropriation in temples
In a significant judgment delivered on August 29, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Mr. Suraj Govindaraj, J., dismissed the writ petition filed by Rajesh Nayak challenging his dismissal from service as a temple employee on charges of issuing duplicate receipts and breach of trust. The petitioner, formerly an Assistant Clerk and later a Second Division Clerk at a temple under the Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, had been accused of misappropriating temple funds by issuing duplicate receipts using the IT administrator's credentials.
The Court meticulously examined the disciplinary proceedings conducted under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002, and rejected the petitioner's contention that Rule 22-B, which governs enquiry procedures in disputes concerning institutions, applied to his case. It held that Rule 17 specifically regulates disciplinary action against temple servants, requiring that the accused be informed of charges and given an opportunity to defend himself, both of which were satisfied in this case.
The petitioner had alleged procedural irregularities, including non-issuance of proper notice, delay beyond six months in completing the enquiry, and examination of additional witnesses without prior disclosure. The Court found these objections unsubstantiated as the petitioner had participated in the enquiry, cross-examined witnesses, and had not demonstrated any specific prejudice due to procedural delays or additional witnesses. It clarified that while Rule 17 mandates the enquiry be completed within six months, failure to do so does not automatically invalidate the enquiry or reinstate the employee, especially when no prejudice is shown.
On the evidentiary front, the Court noted that the charge of issuing duplicate receipts was supported by marked duplicate receipts admitted in evidence, the petitioner's control over the receipt counter, and his IT training. Although no complainant devotees were examined and no audit report was produced, the Court held that the standard of proof in departmental enquiries is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal trials. The second charge concerning deletion of electronic data was not proved, but this did not negate the finding on the first charge.
The revisional authority's order confirming the dismissal was also upheld, as it was found to have considered all relevant materials and grounds raised by the petitioner in accordance with Section 63 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.
Addressing the proportionality of the punishment, the Court ruled that dismissal was not excessive given the breach of trust involved, emphasizing that the gravity of dishonesty in handling temple funds outweighs the monetary value of misappropriation. The plea of discrimination against a co-employee who was not dismissed was rejected due to lack of comparable circumstances.
Beyond disposing of the petition, the Court issued comprehensive general directions aimed at safeguarding temple funds and ensuring transparency in financial management across all temples governed by the Act of 1997. These directions include the implementation of a unified, centralized, real-time electronic financial management system with tamper-proof receipting, QR code-based devotee verification, strict access controls, rotation of staff at sensitive posts, biometric attendance, fidelity guarantees, and comprehensive audit and vigilance mechanisms.
Further, the Court mandated protocols for hundi and other collections, prompt banking, cash retention limits, secure custody of valuables, digital inventory management for prasada and stores, CCTV surveillance, transparent procurement, and digitized property registers to prevent misappropriation and encourage accountability.
The Court also called for the establishment of a steering committee and nodal officers to oversee implementation, with periodic status reports to be filed, ensuring these systemic safeguards are institutionalized and monitored effectively.
This landmark ruling underscores the judiciary's proactive role in not only adjudicating individual disputes but also in mandating structural reforms to protect public religious trusts and enhance the governance of temple assets in Karnataka.
Bottom Line:
Disciplinary proceedings against temple servant governed by Rule 17 of Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 - Rule 22-B inapplicable to disciplinary proceedings against individual employees.
Statutory provision(s): Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 Rule 17, Rule 22-B; Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 Section 63; Indian Penal Code Sections 409, 468, 471, 420, 201
