N.Madhusoodanan vs Travancore Devaswom Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 3861 Ker

                   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)

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)

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)

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)





                                   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