Kerala High Court
Guruvayoor Prathikarana Vedi vs Secretary To Government on 5 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)KLT19
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, Pius C. Kuriakose
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by an Organization by name Guruvayoor Prathikarana Vedi challenging Ext.P11 order of stay and also the final order passed by the Government on 21.1.2004 entertaining a Revision Petition preferred by the fifth respondent under Section 33 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978.
2. The Government by the impugned order set aside the resolutions dated 25.2.2002 and 11.8.2003 passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Committee and the show cause notice issued by the Administrator to the fifth respondent based on the resolution. Managing Committee by those proceedings found that the order passed by the previous Managing Committee on 10.6.1995 setting aside all the punishments imposed on the fifth respondent by entertaining a Review Petition is illegal and without jurisdiction. The legality of the various orders passed by the Government and of the previous Managing Committee dated 10.6.1995 is the subject matter of these proceedings. These proceedings would demonstrate the callous and indifferent manner in which various committees manage the affairs of the temple and how indiscipline is being perpetuated.
3. The fifth respondent while working as Assistant Lineman in the service of the Guruvayoor Devaswom on 29.7.1988 was placed under suspension vide File No.B6/ 4707/88 on the allegation that he used Oottupura of the temple for immoral traffic. Enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty and imposed the punishment of barring of increment with cumulative effect but was reinstated in service on 21.9.1989. Fifth respondent filed appeal against the said order before the Managing Committee. Appeal was dismissed on 3.11.1989. Fifth respondent was again placed under suspension alleging that he had entered room No. 4 of Sathram South Block on 30.7.1989 at 2.45 a.m. and misbehaved towards a lady inmate. Enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty. Increment was barred for a period of six months without cumulative effect on 16.5.1991. He preferred appeal against the said order as well before the Managing Committee which was dismissed on 27.1.1992. He was again placed under suspension on 18.4.1999 on the allegation that he disobeyed the direction of the higher authorities. Enquiry was conducted and increment in his salary was barred with cumulative effect as per order dated 27.5.1989. Against the said order fifth respondent preferred appeal before the Managing Committee which was also dismissed. Fifth respondent was again suspended for misbehaviour towards the Administrator, on 3.10.1990. He was again placed under suspension for unauthorised absence, on 14.6.1991. He was also placed under suspension on 8.12.1997 on the allegation that he had misbehaved towards the Magistrate of Chavakkad.
4. Fifth respondent after a lapse of several years filed a Review Petition dated 23.5.1995 before the Managing Committee to review the appellate orders dated 3.11.1989 and 29.1.1992 by which the punishment imposed on him were confirmed/The Committee entertained the Review Petition and set aside the punishments awarded. The decision of the Committee reads as follows:
Apart from stating that the Committee had examined the Review Petition and decided to cancel all the punishments imposed, no reasons have been stated which prompted the Committee to review its orders and to revoke the punishment.
5. Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Organization however questioned the legality and the propriety of the Managing Committee in entertaining the Review Petition and setting aside the appellate orders, by which punishments imposed were upheld. The Association strongly deprecated the practice of entertaining the Review Petition and to set at naught the decision taken by the earlier Managing Committee. Employees Organization also pointed out that if the Managing Committee is taking a decision to review the punishments imposed on the fifth respondent, the Committee should also review other decisions taken by the previous Managing Committee rejecting the appeals filed against other employees also and all of them be equally treated. In the wake of the serious complaints raised by the Association, Administrator forwarded the letter dated 28.10.1995 along with the service book of the fifth respondent to the Government. The Administrator alerted the Government of the far reaching consequences of such decisions and its impact on the discipline and administration of the Devaswoms. The Government returned the service book to the Administrator pointing out that the Government do not propose to interfere under Section 33 of the Act since the issue is concerning the administration of the Devaswom.
6. The newly elected Managing Committee of Guruvayoor Devaswom found that the entertaining of Review Petition by the previous committee and exonerating the fifth, respondent from all the punishments is bad in law and without jurisdiction. The Committee then passed resolution dated 25,2.2002 to that effect and directed the Administrator to take further action. Administrator thereupon issued Ext.P9 notice dated 18.8.2003 to the fifth respondent calling upon him to show cause why steps should not be taken to cancel the decision of the Managing Committee exonerating him of all the charges. Fifth respondent however filed Ext.P 10 petition dated 22.8.2003 before the Minister for Devaswom under Section 33 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 challenging the resolution dated 25.2.2002 and the notice issued by the Administrator. Government later passed Ext.R4 order dated 21.1.2004 revoking the decision of the Managing Committee dated 25.2.2002. The Government held there is no bar in entertaining the Review Petition by the Committee under the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, Rules and Employees Regulations and therefore the decision of the earlier Devaswom Committee dated 10.6.1995 entertaining the Review Petition from the fifth respondent was in order. The legality of the order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
7. The first order of punishment was passed against the fifth respondent on 29.7.1988 by which punishment of barring of increment for three years with cumulative effect was imposed. Appeal preferred by the fifth respondent against the said order was dismissed on 3.11.1989. The second punishment was imposed on 16.5.1991 by which increment was barred for a period of six months without cumulative effect. The appeal preferred was dismissed on 27.1.1992. We may now examine whether the Managing Committee was justified in entertaining the Review Petition filed by the fifth respondent on23.5.1995.
8. Regulation 24 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 is relevant for the purpose of this case. We may extract Section 24(a), (b), (c) and (d) for easy reference.
a) Every member of the Guruvayoor Devaswom service shall be entitled to appeal against any order of the Administrator passed under the provisions of these Regulations to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee.
b) No appeal shall be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of two months from the date on which the appellant receives a copy of the order appealed against. Provided that the Managing Committee may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time.
c) While disposing of the appeal the Managing Committee shall consider all the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it may deem just and equitable.
d) Against the orders passed by the Managing Committee on the appeal no second appeal or revision shall lie to any authority.
Appeals preferred by the fifth respondent were dismissed on 3.11.1989 and 27.1.1992 respectively. Regulation 24 (d) states that against the orders passed by the Managing Committee no second appeal or revision would lie to any authority and hence the appellate orders dated 27.6.1989 and 27.1.1992 had become final. Fifth respondent did not pursue the matter even by moving the Government under Section 33 of the Act.
9. The Fifth respondent after a period of six years from the orders dated 27.6.1989 and more than three years from the second order, preferred a Review Petition before the new Managing Committee. Review Petition was entertained by the then Managing Committee. Entertaining of the Review Petition by the previous Managing Committee, in our view, is illegal and without jurisdiction and Government have committed an error in holding that Review Petition is maintainable before the Committee since it was not specifically barred by the Act and Rules. The Government have completely misunderstood the law. The Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and the Rules and the Employees Regulations, 1983 do not confer any power of review on the Managing Committee.
10. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act. No power of review has been conferred under the Act or under the Rules and Regulations on the Committee. It is trite law that there is no inherent power of review with any authority unless it is conferred by the statute. Refer the decisions of the Apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Sri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji ((1971) 3 SCC 844), Mehar Singh Nanak Chand v. Sri Naunihal Thakardas ((1973) 3 SCC 731), R.R. Verma v. Union of India ((1980) 3 SCC 402). The Committee resolution dated 10.6.1995 entertaining the Review Petition of the fifth respondent is therefore illegal and without jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, we hold the present Managing Committee's resolution dated 25.2.2001 setting at naught the resolution dated 10.6.1995 is in order and legally sustainable. We hold so.
11. We may now examine the legality of the order passed by the Government under Section 33 of the Act. Section 33 of the Act reads as follows:
33. Power of Governments to call for records and pass orders: (1) The Governments may call for and examine the record of the Commissioner or of the Committee in respect of any proceeding, not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or application to the Court is provided by this Act, to satisfy themselves that the provisions of this Act have not been violated or the interests of the Devaswom have been safeguarded and if, in any case, it appears to the Government that any decision or order passed in such proceedings has violated the provisions of this Act or is not in the interest of the Devaswom, they may modify, annul or reverse such decision or order or remit such decision or order for reconsideration:
Provided that the Government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has had a reasonable opportunity of making his representations.
No time limit has been prescribed under the Act for entertaining a revision under Section 33, that is all the more reason that the Government should exercise the power only if it is moved within a reasonable time. The Apex Court" in State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma (1995 (suppl.) 3 SCC 249) held when revisional power is conferred on the Government it is to be exercised within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner which inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time and on extraordinary circumstances which is delineated in the Section itself. Absence of limitation is an assurance to exercise the power with caution or circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act or to prevent miscarriage of justice or violation of the provisions of the Act or misuse or abuse of power by the lower authorities. Revisional powers is conferred on the Government to satisfy themselves that the Commissioner or the Managing Committee have not violated any provision of the Act. In our view, the Committee was only setting right an illegality committed by the previous Committee since they had no jurisdiction to review the earlier decision.
12. The Government have not stated in the order which provision of the Act has been violated or on what manner the interest of the Devaswom has been safeguarded. On the other hand, Government have committed a fundamental mistake in holding that since the power of review is not excluded by the statute, the Committee could exercise the power of review. Unless power of review is conferred on a statutory authority it has no jurisdiction to exercise the power of review. If the Government's interpretation of law is upheld the Devaswom Committee would hereafter exercise the review power which is not conferred by the Act and regulations. Government said on examining files B6-4707/88 that they are convinced that the delinquent has not committed any offence. First of all, Government is not exercising an appellate power, secondly no reasons have been stated by the Government for interfering with the orders of punishment imposed. Earlier the Government had declined to interfere when the same issue was raised by the Administrator before the Government vide its proceedings dated 10.6.1996. In such circumstances, we allow this Writ Petition and set aside the order of the Government dated 21.1.2004.