Kerala High Court
P.S. Santhosh Kumar vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 11 February, 2014
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/28TH MAGHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 4436 of 2014 (D)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------------
1. P.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR,AGED 40 YEARS,
PARAMBATHU PUTHEN PURA,
THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM,
(DEVASWOM WATCHER, VAIKOM MAHADEVA KSHETHRAM),
(UNDER SUSPENSION).
2. K.R.RATHEESH,
S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 31 YEARS,
KOTTETH VEEDU, THUTHIYOOR,
KAKKANAD (PATHRAM THEPPU,
VAIKKOM MAHADEVA KSHETHRAM (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION).
BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,
SMT.PREEJA. P.VIJAYAN.
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
VAIKOM MAHADEVA KSHETHRAM, VAIKOM -686 141.
BY SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, S.C.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C).NO.4436/2014-D:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 11.2.2014.
EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY DATED 11.2.2014.
EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO. 4436 of 2014
---------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are employees of the 1st respondent Devaswom, posted at the 'Vaikom Mahadeva Kshethram'. The petitioners were suspended by virtue of Ext.P1 order issued by the 2nd respondent, alleging serious derelictions of duty. Crux of the allegation is that the petitioners have failed to report about theft of money committed by the Guards of the temple, to any higher officials of the temple administration or to the 1st respondent Devaswom. It is evident from Ext.P1 order that the petitioners along with another person were suspended pending disciplinary action. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P1 order in this writ petition.
2. Contention of the petitioners is that, the allegations contained in Ext.P1 itself will reveal that there was no serious dereliction of duty from the side of the petitioners and it was only the petitioners who had detected the theft of money and recovered the amount, and put the same in the 'Kanikkavanchi' WP(C).4436 /2014 2 with the help of K.B. Gopakumar, the 'Sambandhi'.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, the petitioners were suspended because they have colluded with the Guards who committed theft of money belonging to the temple, in the matter of concealing the detection of theft. It is alleged that they have failed in reporting the matter to higher officials of the temple or Devaswom, within any reasonable time.
4. Veracity of the allegations contained in Ext.P1 is not a matter which can be adjudicated in this writ petition. Evidently the order of suspension was issued pending finalisation of the disciplinary action proposed against the petitioners. The order of suspension reveals that the same was issued on the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted. Therefore it is not just and proper for this court to interfere, for which an adjudication regarding correctness of the allegations is to be made. It is noticed that the petitioners have already approached the 2nd respondent in Exts.P3 and P4 requests seeking review of the order of suspension. It is for the 2nd respondent to consider such WP(C).4436 /2014 3 request and to take an appropriate decision. Therefore this court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent.
5. Hence the writ petition is disposed of hereby directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P3 and P4 requests submitted seeking review of the order of suspension and to take an appropriate decision thereon, if necessary after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The requests shall be disposed of at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
pmn/
WP(C).4436 /2014 4
WP(C).4436 /2014 5