Kerala High Court
P.Parameswaran Namboothiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board/ on 14 September, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/30TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 19108 of 2015 (K)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
P.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
S/O.V.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
CHERUTHALA MADOM, EZHAKADVU,
CHERUKOL.P.O., MAVELIKARA (MELSANTHI,
KEERTHIPURAM DEVASWOM, KANDIYOOR SUB GROUP,
MAVELIKKARA GROUP)
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD/
CHIEF COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF
THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANDHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANDHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
MAVELIKARA GROUP, MAVELIKARA - 690 101.
BY SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR, SC
BY SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 19108 of 2015 (K)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2012 IN
WPC.NO.19770/2012.
EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2012 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.26696 OF 2012(J).
EXT.P2A: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 11.10.2012.
EXT.P2B: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENSE
DATED 27.10.2012.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING ROC NO.7893/12/MIS-1
DATED 24.4.2013.
EXT.P3A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2013 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING ROC NO.13365/12/MIS. A
DATED 30.5.2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2015 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
P.V.ASHA J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.19108 of 2015
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the 'Melsanthi' at Keerthipuram Devaswom under the Travancore Devaswom Board. He was placed under suspension in connection with a theft occurred while he was working as 'Melsanthi' of Mavelikkara Sreekrishnan Swamy Temple, between 03.07.2012 and 04.07.2012. Supervisory lapse was alleged against the petitioner. However, the petitioner was reinstated as per order dated 10.09.2012 and posted as a Melsanthi in Neyyattinkara Group. Petitioner submits that subsequent to his reinstatement, Ext.P2(a) memo of charge was issued to the petitioner on 11.10.2012 and he submitted Ext.P2(b) explanation denying the charges. As per Ext.P3 order, the Board exonerated the petitioner from the disciplinary proceedings and decided to grant him transfer, to a suitable place. Thereafter, as per Ext.P4 order dated 30.05.2015, the period during which the petitioner was W.P.(C).No.19108 of 2015 2 placed under suspension was regularised as duty.
2. However, the Board issued Ext.P5 order on 04.06.2015, directing that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in respect of the theft occurred in the Temple would be continued. The petitioner's case is that the order Ext.P5 is issued without any notice to him, at a time when he was exonerated from the charges as per Ext.P3 order dated 24.04.2013. Ext.P5 order is seen passed based on findings in separate proceedings initiated against the Watcher as well as Kazhakam in which they were found guilty of the charges relating to the very same incident of theft. It is seen that in Ext.P5 petitioner was also implicated along with the Watcher and kazhakam and hence it was decided to continue the disciplinary proceedings against him.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has filed a statement. But nothing is stated regarding the decision to proceed against the petitioner again, except a statement that there is noting wrong in reviewing the order.
4. Petitioner points out that on account of the order Ext.P5, he is not considered for any appointments to W.P.(C).No.19108 of 2015 3 major Temples.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
6. Ext.P5 as well as the statement filed by the respondents, has not indicated any notice being issued to the petitioner before taking a decision to proceed against the petitioner in respect of the theft occurred in the Temple. On the other hand, the proceedings initiated against him after giving a memo of charges Ext.P2(a) was dropped as per Ext.P3 order dated 24.04.2013, on being convinced of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. If at all a review was necessary and permissible, the respondents should have issued a notice to the petitioner and afforded an opportunity of hearing before taking a decision to proceed against the petitioner when the disciplinary action against him was already finalised.
In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 order is quashed and there shall be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in case, if is found necessary.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS