Kerala High Court
N.Madhusoodanan vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 3 February, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.28918 OF 2012(L)
PETITIONERS:
1 N.MADHUSOODANAN
AGED 49 YEARS
WATCHER, THIRUPURAM DEVASWOM, NEYYATTINKARA GROUP, TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD, RESIDING AT THARA BHAVAN, SIVANKOVIL ROAD,
BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 V.SUGATHAN
WATCHER, BHAGAVATHI NADA DEVASWOM, VENGANOOR SUB GROUP,
NEYYATTINKARA GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, RESIDING AT
SAJITHA BHAVAN, CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
SRI.V.ANIRUDHAN NAIR
SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU
-
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2 THE COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
3 THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.28918 OF 2012(L)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who were stated to be working as Watchers in the services of Travancore Devaswom Board when this matter was filed in the year 2012, have impugned Exts.P8 and P9 notices, as per which, they were intimated that the Board proposes to impose a major punishment against them, based on an enquiry conducted earlier on the allegation that they were found clandestinely removing coins at the time when they were working at the Pamba Devaswom and engaged in the work of counting the offerings of the pilgrims.
2. The petitioners say that the action proposed through Exts.P8 and P9 against them is wholly incorrect in law, since no enquiry has ever been conducted; nor have they been given a copy of any such report prior to it. They, therefore, assert that Exts.P8 and P9 are vitiated and prayed that same be set aside.
3. When this matter was called today, Sri.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that during the time when this matter had been pending before this Court, the first petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation, while the second petitioner is still WP(C).No.28918 OF 2012(L) 3 serving the Board.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board - Sri.C.K.Pavithran submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record, wherein, it has been specifically averred that an enquiry had been conducted prior to the issuance of Exts.P8 and P9 notices and that the third respondent was the Enquiry Officer who conducted the said enquiry on 21.3.2010. He submitted that the petitioners appeared before the Enquiry Officer and gave oral evidence. He added that, in addition to this, the Enquiry Officer also examined some other witnesses, consequent to which, he settled his report and submitted it before the second respondent. The learned Standing Counsel submits that it is, thereafter, that Exts.P8 and P9 notices were issued to the petitioners, asking them to show cause why the proposed punishment be not imposed on them.
5. In reply, Sri.Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, submitted that his client has already refuted the afore assertions by filling a reply affidavit dated 22.01.2020; and that it is vehemently asserted by his clients that no such enquiry ever took place. He submitted that his clients were only informed through telephone about certain inquiries being conducted but that no formal enquiry had WP(C).No.28918 OF 2012(L) 4 been initiated or concluded, as has been averred in the counter affidavit of the respondent. He ingeminatingly submitted that, therefore, the action proposed against his clients through Exts.P8 and P9 is illegal.
6. An assessment of the afore rival contentions of the parties make it clear that the dispute between them is as to whether a proper enquiry had been conducted prior to the issuance of Exts.P8 and P9 notices. While the petitioners contend that no such enquiry was conducted, the Board contends to the contrary.
7. Obviously, therefore, this is not a matter in which this Court can affirmatively speak about, particularly when the dispute is in the factual realm.
8. I am, however, of the firm view that no action pursuant to Exts.P8 and P9 can be allowed to continue, until the petitioners are served with the enquiry report, along with the testimonies relied upon by the enquiry officer, so that they will be in a position to challenge the same or to answer it in such manner, as they may be advised. I am sure that, if this is done, the rival interests of the parties will obtain a balance and that the petitioners can then pursue their legal remedies as per law.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and WP(C).No.28918 OF 2012(L) 5 direct 1st and 2nd respondents to serve a copy of the enquiry report mentioned by them in their counter affidavit, along with the copies of the testimonies of witnesses relied upon by the enquiry officer, to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; consequent to which, the petitioners will be at liberty to answer appropriately to Exts.P8 and P9 or to challenge the report in such manner as they may be advised.
Needless to say, until the report is furnished to the petitioners in terms of these directions and until a period of one month expires thereafter, no further action based on Exts.P8 and P9 will be pursued against them.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Akv/rp JUDGE
WP(C).No.28918 OF 2012(L)
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED TO THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 16.03.2011
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED TO THE
2ND PETITIONER DATED 16.03.2011
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO CHARGES ALONG WITH THE
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 12.05.2011 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO CHARGES ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 12.05.2011 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 30.05.2011 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 30.05.2011 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.09.2011 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 07.09.2012 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 07.09.2012 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 05.10.2012 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 05.10.2012 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 25.10.2012 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.11.2012 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.11.2012