Kerala High Court
Sunil.S vs The Commissioner on 4 March, 2016
Author: P.V Asha
Bench: P.V Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/12TH BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 4912 of 2007 (I)
--------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------
SUNIL.S., SREEBHAVAN,
VAKATHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, CHANGANASSERY GROUP
KOTTAYAM.
3. THE SUB-GROUP OFFICER,
MAJOR MANIKANDA PURAM TEMPLE,
VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM.
*ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED
*4. RAMA WARRIER,
THEKKEDATHU HOUSE,
VAKATHANAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM.
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER ORDER DTD. 19/2/07
IN IA NO. 2558/07.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)
SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB
SRI.P.GOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appears. Dismissed for default.
03/09/2012 SD/- B.P.RAY , JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
P.V ASHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who was working as a karanma Kazhakom in the Major Manikandapuram Temple, has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 letter of the Sub Group Officer, by which he was informed that he was removed from service.
2. The petitioner was appointed as karanma Kazhakom on being nominated by the eldest member of the Thekkedath family which is having karanma right in the Major Manikandapuram Temple and he had been working there since 1.6.2003. While working so, the Sub Group Officer issued a show cause notice to him on 22.5.2004 alleging disobedience, insubordination, non-availability for duties in the temple causing complaints against him from the devotees, etc. The reply submitted by him on 25.5.2004 was not satisfactory. Thereafter, on receipt of a report from the Assistant Commissioner about serious deriliction of duties on the part of petitioner coupled with continued insubordination, the Commissioner of the Devaswom issued Ext.P2(a), show cause notice on 3.9.2004, asking him to W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I 2 show cause why he should not be removed from service and why proceedings should not be initiated to get another member of the family nominated in his place to perform the duties of Kazhakam. By submitting Ext P3 explanation dated 26.9.2004, petitioner denied the allegations against him and explained the duties performed by him. Petitioner has produced another show cause notice Ext P2(b) dated 2.12.2006 issued by the Sub Group Officer, calling for his explanation on the allegations that he was not performing the duties assigned to him; he was not interested in protecting the interest of the temple and the devotees, causing very serious complaints against him.
3. Pursuant to Ext.P2(a) show cause notice, an inquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent through the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, Haripad and Ext.P4 inquiry report was submitted, finding insubordination and deriliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 objection to the inquiry report on 10.12.2005 and subsequent to that he received Ext.P6 letter informing his removal from service.
4. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 letter on the ground W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I 3 that the same is cryptic and does not contain any reason. It is also alleged that the order of termination is passed without hearing him and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioner is that the inquiry officer examined only one witness, that too, a person who retired from service in April, 2004 and the order is passed after an year of the inquiry report.
5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was removed from service as per Ext.R1(c) order dated 25.1.2007 of the Board. The petitioner has neither challenged Ext.R1(c) nor impleaded the Board, which passed the order of removal. According to them, the Board arrived at the decision to remove the petitioner, on the basis of the findings in the inquiry conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend in the inquiry and the final order was passed after hearing his objections. It is stated that, as the petitioner was a Karanma employee, the respondents had requested the head of the Thekkedath family to nominate another eligible member of the family to perform the duties of Kazhakom as per Ext.R1(B) letter dated 12.2.2007. But there was W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I 4 no response to it. Therefore, a substitute was engaged in his place. Producing Ext.R1A mahazar, the respondents have stated that Ext.R1(c) order was served on the petitioner on 8.2.2007; but he refused to put his signature in the copy to acknowledge the same.
6. But the petitioner challenges Ext.P6 intimation as to his removal alone on the ground that the same is cryptic, ordered without hearing or considering his objections; in violation of the principles of natural justice, etc.
7. I heard Sri P.Vinodkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Sreekumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
8. The fact remains that the petitioner did not assail the order of removal even after it was produced by the Board as Ext R1(c). All along his complaint is that, Ext.P6 was issued without a proper inquiry conducted; witnesses examined were not competent. In this case, it is seen that the show cause notices were issued to the petitioner as to the irregularity in performance of duties as Karanma in the temple. The petitioner has submitted his explanation and thereafter an inquiry was W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I 5 conducted; copy of the report was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner has again submitted his representation as against the inquiry report. Apart from insubordination, there were complaints against the petitioner from the local devotees also. The Board arrived at a decision to remove the petitioner. Simultaneously a letter was issued to the senior member of the family requesting to nominate another member as Karanma. By Ext.R1(b) letter dated 12.2.2007, Sri.T.K.Ramawarrier, the senior most member of the Karanma family to which the petitioner belonged, was requested to nominate another member to perform the duties of Karanma pointing out the decision of the Board taken on 25.1.2007 as against the petitioner. It was by Ext.R1(c) order dated 25.1.2007 that the Board found that the petitioner committed serious dereliction of duties and it was necessary to replace the petitioner by another eligible and competent member of the family.
9. Section 28 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 provides for Board's control over Karanma service. According to this, the Board is having absolute control over all Karanma services. Subsection (2) of section 28 of the W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I 6 Act provides as follows:
(2) Whenever it is reported that owing to incompetency, negligence or other cause, any Karanma service is not being regularly performed, or that an alienation of Karanma service or of the property, Thiruppuvaram or other emolument attached thereto, has been effected by the Karanma holder or by any member or members of the Karanma family, the Board shall give due notice of the charge to the head of the family and the next senior member, and also to such other members of the Karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary, and if after hearing their objections, if any, the Board is satisfied that there has been an alienation of the Karanma service of the property or of the Thiruppuvaram or of the other emoluments attached thereto or that there has been a failure to perform the service properly or regularly, the Board shall suspend, remove, determine, cancel or deal with in any other manner the Karanma right of the family to the service.
10. Therefore, it can be seen that, when a report is W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I 7 received regarding the incompetency, negligence or other cause in regularly performing any Karanma service, the Board, after notice to the head of the family or such other members of the Karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary, and after hearing their objection, if the Board is satisfied that there has been failure to perform the service properly or regularly, it shall suspend, remove, determine, cancel or deal with in any other manner the Karanma right of the service to the servants.
11. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner did not choose to file any reply affidavit refuting the contentions in the counter affidavit. He did not also choose to challenge Ext.R1(c) or to implead the Board which took the decision. His complaint is that Ext.P6 order is violative of the principles of natural justice, as the same is passed without hearing him. In fact Section 28 of the Act does not provide for any full fledged inquiry.
12. The case of the petitioner is that there were infirmities in the inquiry; he was not given any opportunity of hearing before he was removed from service; no reason is stated in Ext.P6; his objections in Ext.P5 are not considered; only an interested witness was examined and it is based on her W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I 8 testimony that the findings in the inquiry are rendered; Ext.P6 order was passed after more than one year after he submitted objection, etc.
13. As the removal of the petitioner is seen made after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and after the Board came to the conclusion on the basis of the reports received after conducting the inquiry about the dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. It was up to the Karanma family to provide a substitute in the place of the petitioner, in case there is any competent and eligible person to perform the duties of Karanma. As long as the control of the Board under Section 28 is not disputed, the order of removal or Ext.P6 by which Ext.R1(c) was communicated, cannot be said to be illegal.
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge rtr/rkc /true copy/ P.S to Judge