Janardhanan Potti vs The Devaswom Commissioner, Tdb
2022 Latest Caselaw 8816 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 14370 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              JANARDHANAN POTTI
              AGED 52 YEARS
              S/O SREENIVASAN POTTI, PRAVEENA
              VILASAM,PADINJATTINKARA.P.O, THEVALAKKARA,
              KOLLAM 690 524.

              BY ADVS.
              C.RAJENDRAN
              B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TDB
              TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM
              COMMISSIONER, NANDANCODE JUNCTION, KAWDIAR POST,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695003

     2        THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
              OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
              KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 690 518.

     3        SUB GROUP OFFICER
              KUMARANCHIRA DEVASWOM, KUMARANCHIRA KARUNAGAPPALLY,
              KOLLAM-690 522

              BY ADV.
              C.K PAVITHRAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14370 OF 2022                  2




                                   JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling and commanding the respondents to engage the petitioner to perform the duties of the "Melsanthi" in Kumaranchira temple or any other temple with full pay and allowance.

ii) To call for the records leading to Ext Pl and P3 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ order or direction.

iii) To declare that Exhibit P3 prima facie shows that there is no requirement of the petitioner to place under suspension.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

standing counsel appearing for respondent Board.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that on frivolous allegations Ext.P1 show cause notice has been

issued to the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2

reply. Thereafter, it is contended that on 2/4/2022 the petitioner has

been kept under suspension without any valid reason.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits

that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and that the

disciplinary proceedings are on going.

5. I am of the opinion that since the petitioner has been kept

under suspension since 2/4/2022, it is for the respondents to

consider whether it is required to keep the petitioner under

suspension any longer in the light of the allegations made against

him.

In case the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent with a

request for revocation of suspension, the same shall be considered

in accordance with law, taking note of the allegations against the

petitioner and considering whether it is necessary to keep the

petitioner under suspension, pending the disciplinary proceedings. In

case the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent with the

representation within two weeks from today, the same shall be

considered within a period of two weeks thereafter.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ska

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14370/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN FEBRUARY 2022.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY LETTER BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.2.2022.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD DATED 02.04.2022.