Kerala High Court
Adarsh Chandran vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 6 November, 2020
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942
WP(C).No.21296 OF 2020(J)
PETITIONER:
ADARSH CHANDRAN, WATCHER (UNDER SUSPENSION),
ETTUMANUR DEVASWOM, ETTUMANUR,
KOTTAYAM-686631, RESIDING AT KAITHAKKAL,
KATTACHIRA P.O., ETTUMANUR-686572.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN
SMT.R.ANJALI
SRI.ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TDB, HEAD OFFICE,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
2 THE COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
3 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
ETTUMANUR DEVASWOM, DEVASWOM OFFICE,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ETTUMANUR-686572.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 21296/20
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that while he was working as a Watcher at the Ettumanur Mahadeva Temple, he was placed under suspension through Ext.P1 order, alleging that he was found drunk by the Vigilance Officer, who had made a surprise visit.
2. The petitioner says that the allegations against him are completely incorrect and that, therefore, he had preferred his objections to the same, explaining that the person who had come to the temple was wearing a mask and had not identified himself, thus he being justified in refusing him entry. He further asserts that he has been suspended through Ext.P1, nearly three months after the alleged incident on 25.09.2020; and thus, prays that the same be quashed and the Travancore Devaswom Board be WPC 21296/20 3 directed to reinstate him forthwith.
3. In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Sri.S.Rajmohan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, Sri.C.K.Pavithran, submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are extremely grave and therefore, that the Board has now initiated a full-fledged enquiry against him. As regards the delay in issuing Ext.P1, he submitted that, as has been averred in his statement filed, the report of the Vigilance Officer was obtained by the Devaswom Commissioner soon after the incident, but that on account of the Covid-19 pandemic protocol and restrictions, he was unable to take any further action on it until Ext.P1 had been issued. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed and the petitioner be directed to co-operate with the enquiry. WPC 21296/20 4
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious that there is a clear dispute of facts between the parties - the petitioner asserting that he was not drunk and that he had not let the Vigilance Officer inside the temple because he had not disclosed his identity; while the Board maintaining that the Vigilance Officer found the petitioner to be drunk on the day when the surprise visit was made.
5. I am, therefore, of the view that an enquiry is necessary to the incident; and consequently, that the Board should take steps for doing so without further delay, particularly when the petitioner has already been placed under suspension through Ext.P1.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the Travancore Devaswom Board to complete the disciplinary enquiry WPC 21296/20 5 against the petitioner, culminating in a final order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; failing which, he shall be reinstated in service immediately thereafter.
Needless to say, the petitioner will be entitled to the subsistence allowance as per the Rules, as also to all other eligible benefits, if any, during the period when he is under suspension.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 21296/20
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ROC
NO.12330/20/VIGILANCE DATED 25/09/2020.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.528 DATED 20/06/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23/06/2020. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/10/2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON 25/06/2020.