Disposed

P.Parameswaran Namboothiri v. the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom

Kerala HC9 Nov 2009WP(C)/21507/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the transfer of a Devashom employee involving repetition of misconduct charges. The Court held the transfer was due to administrative exigency and refused to act in appeal, directing disciplinary proceedings for the new charge to be conducted by the authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to disciplinary authority to finalize proceedings regarding Charge No.1 in Ext.P12.

P.Parameswaran Namboothiri Vs the Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 21507 of 2009(G)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------

¶9

SRI,PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI.P, CHERUTHALA MADOM, EZHAKKADAVU PO, CHERUKOL, MAVELIKKARA NOW RESIDING AS SANTHI, THRIKODITHANAM DEVASWOM CHENGANASSERY,.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-----------------------

¶13

1. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. ASST.DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, MAVELIKKARA GROUP, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, HARIPAD DEVASWOM, HARIPAD.

¶16

4. DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, HARIPAD DEVASWOM, HARIPAD,.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-2 & 4 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1-2 & 4

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21507 OF 2009 (G)

¶20

=====================

¶21

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2009

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioner is a Keezhsanthi, who was working in the Harippad Devaswom. By Ext.P5, he was transferred to Changanassery Devaswom and was relieved. Petitioner represented for getting the transfer cancelled by Ext.P6. That was ordered to be considered by Ext.P7 judgment of this court in WP(C) No.36520/08. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order has been passed. Subsequently, Exts.P11 and P12 memo of charges were issued. It is thereupon that the writ petition is filed.

¶24

The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that by Ext.P2, he was proceeded against on certain allegations of misconducts. It is stated that the proceedings concluded by Ext.P4, by which a punishment of warning was imposed on him. On this basis, it is contended that Exts.P11 and P12 are repetition of the charges made against him in Ext.P2. It is also his case that he is liable to be transferred back to Harippad.

¶25

As far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding the transfer is concerned, evidently facts itself show that it was on

¶26

WPC 21507/09

¶27

:2 :

¶28

account of certain allegations levelled against the petitioner and the objections of the Temple Advisory Committee that he was transferred. This discloses a case of administrative exigency and this Court will not be justified in sitting in appeal over the same.

¶29

In so far as the sustainability of the charges are concerned, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that Ext.P2 proceedings have been finalised by Ext.P4. It is also stated that among the charges that are now levelled against the petitioner, only Charge No.1 in Ext.P12 will be proceeded against. Rest of the charges, even the respondents admit, have already become final by Ext.P4.

¶30

Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is now confined to only charge No.1 in Ext.P12. A reading of the said charge itself show that the allegation is different from what is contained in Ext.P2 charges, which resulted in Ext.P4 order of punishment. If that be so, the disciplinary authority has to proceed with the disciplinary action and conclude the same.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner submits that Charge No.1 in Ext.P12 is unsustainable. He is also referring to a letter issued by the five main thanthris of the Devaswom Board, which according

¶32

WPC 21507/09

¶33

:3 :

¶34

to him proves that there is no substance in the charge.

¶35

As already seen, the disciplinary action is pending and it is for the disciplinary authority to appreciate the evidence that are produced by both sides and take a decision in the matter.

¶36

Therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to produce whatever documents he wants to produce before the disciplinary authority, in which event, the disciplinary authority shall deal with the case, duly adverting to the evidence produced by both sides.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

P.Parameswaran Namboothiri v. the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Parameswaran Namboothiri v. the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Vijayakumar Vs Indian Overseas Bank

K.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh.a.S. Vs K.P.S.C. and Others

P.R.Raveendran Nair Vs the State of Kerala Rep.by Its Secretary

E.R.Rengeetha & Others Vs Cochin Devaswom Board-Rep; by Secretary

Ancy Rose K. Vs Director of Agriculture Soil Conservatio