Single judge of High Court held suspension of Executive Officer unjustified despite pending enquiry. Quashed suspension orders and directed reinstatement with liberty to post elsewhere.
Exts.P1 and P2 are quashed and petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with liberty to post him at any station.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 19150 of 2010(P)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ------------------------
K.JAGADEESH PRASAD, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.K.RAMACHANDRA,EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KANIPURA SRI GOPLAKRISHNA TEMPLE, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671321.
BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE.
3. THE ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KASARAGOD
ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R1-3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19150 OF 2010 (P)
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is an Executive Officer Grade I under the 1st respondent. He joined Mannampurathu Kavu Bhagavathy Temple, Neeleswar on 21/7/05. During his tenure at Mannampurathu Kavu Devaswom, for the purpose of construction of a Nadapandal, tenders were invited both for construction and also for supply of materials like cement and steel. According to the petitioner, with the concurrence of the trustees, tenders were awarded to the lowest tenderer. It is also stated that during that period, two fixed deposits of the Devaswom had matured, and that the deposits were transferred to the Savings Bank Account in order to meet the cost of construction, which again according to the petitioner, was with the approval of the trustees.
WPC No. 19150/10
:2 :
on Ext.P3, an enquiry report concerning the construction and the incidental works relating to the Nadapandal, Ext.P1 order was passed by the 2nd respondent directing that the petitioner be placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. Accordingly, Ext.P2 order was issued by the 3rd respondent implementing Ext.P1. It is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 and claiming reinstatement, the writ petition is filed.
:3 :
WPC No. 19150/10
the petitioner is tainted with illegalities and unlawful acts. They refer to the suspension of the petitioner by order dated 6/4/93. It is also stated that the petitioner was charge sheeted in June 2003 and that the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet in July 2003 and that the matter is pending before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that audit raised objection regarding the amount of Rs.7,46,069, which was expended in connection with the construction of the Nadapandal. It is stated that police have also registered a crime alleging offences of misappropriation of money as Crime No.147/10. It is stated that if the petitioner is reinstated in service, he will tamper with evidence and interfere with the enquiry proceedings. It is on this ground, the suspension is sought to be justified.
:4 :
WPC No. 19150/10
concerned, it is stated that respondents have, for malafide reasons, are delaying further action in the matter. Petitioner also denies the other allegations against him including the possibility of tampering with the evidence and interference with the enquiry proceedings.
WPC No. 19150/10
:5 :
petitioner has been transferred from that temple, and therefore, the petitioner's retention in service cannot be against the interest of that temple by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, retention of the petitioner cannot affect the interest of the religious institution concerned, and therefore, that part of Rule 16 can have no application.
WPC No. 19150/10
:6 :
the disciplinary authority to continue the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner, on the materials available, there is absolutely no justification to keep the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, I see no reason to sustain the order placing the petitioner under suspension and that too contrary to the recommendation contained in Ext.P3 enquiry report. Exts.P1 and P2 are therefore quashed.
Be that as it may, in order to ensure that the petitioner's reinstatement and continuance in service will not be of any prejudice to the enquiry that is pending against him, it is directed that while the respondents 1 and 2 shall reinstate the petitioner in service, they will be free to post the petitioner at any station they consider appropriate. With that liberty, the writ petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P1 and P2.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders suspending the petitioner from service are justified on grounds of public interest.
Whether the petitioner's retention in service affects the interest of the religious institution.
Whether there is a possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence or interfering with enquiry proceedings.
K.JAGADEESH PRASAD
THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE
THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE
THE ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KASARAGOD
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
