Kerala High Court
M.K.Venu vs State Of Kerala on 12 June, 2009
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35361 of 2008(T)
1. M.K.VENU, WATCHER, EKUNNAM DEVASWOM,
... Petitioner
2. P.N.MAHESHKUMAR, SAMBANTHI, DEVIKULAM
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
3. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
5. THE MANAGER/SUB GROUP OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :12/06/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P.(C) No. 35361 of 2008 T
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri. P.Gopal, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5.
2. The petitioners who are employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board were placed under suspension by Exts.P1 and P2 orders, pending disciplinary action against them. Later, Exts.P3 and P4 memo of charges were issued. After enquiry, by Exts.P10 and P11 orders the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom imposed on the petitioners the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the Devasom Assistant Commissioner issued Exts.P12 and P13 orders directing recovery of the sum of Rs.45,000/- from the petitioners, being the loss sustained by the Trvancore Devaswom Board. Aggrieved by Exts.P10 to P13 orders, the petitioners filed Ext.P14 appeal before the W.P.(C) No. 35361/08 2 Board. By Ext.P16 order passed on 17-9-2008 the said appeal was rejected. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge Exts.P11 to P13 and P16 orders.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the various contentions raised in the appeal filed by the petitioners have not been considered, when Ext.P16 order was passed and that the appellate authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009(4) SCC 240) the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the appellate authority was required to give reasons, though briefly, while confirming the decision of the appellate authority. He submits that in the instant case, apart from merely permitting the petitioners to remit the sum of Rs.45,000/- in 12 equal monthly instalments, the appellate authority has not even considered the challenge to Exts.P10 and P11 orders whereby the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioners. A reading of Ext.P.14 appeal discloses that the petitioners had in the appeal challenged the imposition of penalty and also the direction to recover the sum of Rs.45,000/- from them. However, the appellate authority has not dealt with the various contentions W.P.(C) No. 35361/08 3 raised by the petitioners regarding the imposition of the penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. I am therefore satisfied that the appellate authority has failed to consider the various contentions raised by the petitioners on the merits.
In that view of the matter, I allow this writ petition, quash Ext.P16 and direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to reconsider Ext.P14 appeal and pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appellate authority shall consider the various contentions raised by the petitioners and pass an order giving reasons in support of its conclusions. Till orders are passed, as directed above, recovery of the sum of Rs.45,000/- shall be kept in abeyance. The contentions of the petitioners on the merits are kept open.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
mn.