Disposed

Sri.T.K.Ramachandran v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC7 Oct 2013DBP/75/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suo moto proceedings on vigilance reports regarding attendance irregularities and unauthorized wage payments at the Chottanikkara Temple. The High Court held that the final decision rests with the Cochin Devaswom Board to take appropriate action as enjoined by law.

What did the court decide?

None. Liberty granted to the Departmental Board to consider matters and take appropriate action as enjoined by law.

Sri.T.K.Ramachandran Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/15TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

DBP.No. 75 of 2011 ( )

¶6

SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS IN REPORT NO.63/2011, 238/2011 & 43/2013

¶7

COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SHRI T.K.RAMACHANDRAN, 'SUDARSANA' THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPPUNITHURA, KOCHI 682 301.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, CHOTTANIKKARA TEMPLE, CHOTTANIKKARA.

¶13

R, BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN SC FOR CDB

¶14

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD R, BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT-AMICUS CURIE FOR LEARNED OMBUDSMAN

¶15

R, BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN & SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN FOR EMPLOYEES-UDAYAKUMAR, KANAKAMANI, SUBHILASH & AMBIKA

¶16

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

D.B.P.No.75/2011

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2013

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶23

This is a suo moto action based on C.D.B.Report No.63/2011 of the

¶24

learned Ombudsman whereby certain irregularities which were reported by

¶25

the Vigilance Officer with regard to certain employees of the Chottanikkara

¶26

Temple have been brought to the notice of this Court. Thereafter, further report has been submitted as Report No.238/2011 and as of now we have before us the further Report No.43/2013 also.

¶27

By interim order dated 15/06/2011, this Court prima facie

¶28

expressed the view that the report reflects a very sad state of affairs regarding the supervision of the administration of Chottanikkara Temple.

¶29

This Court directed the Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board to file a report before the learned Ombudsman in the matter. In the subsequent

¶30

order dated 04/01/2012, this Court directed the Secretary of the Devaswom

¶31

Board to issue notice to the persons indicted in the vigilance enquiry,

¶32

DBP No.75/2011

¶33

-:2:-

¶34

calling upon them to show cause by filing affidavits in the case before this

¶35

Court answering the findings in the vigilance enquiry as against them. The

¶36

Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board was also directed to file an affidavit as

¶37

to whether the Temple Advisory Committee has submitted its proper

¶38

accounts and whether the Devaswom Accounts Wing had scrutinised

¶39

those accounts or at least whether any other agency conducted such scrutiny.

¶40

3. After the filing of the affidavits, the matter went back to the

¶41

learned Ombudsman and finally, the present report has been filed. The

¶42

report shows that certain staff members have been paid wages though

¶43

they were not working in the Temple on certain days. It is further noted that marking of attendance at a stretch for several days and unauthorised

¶44

persons working in the Devaswom counters were also found in the Vigilance enquiry. The reply of the Assistant Commissioner dated

¶45

13/05/2013 is also attached to the report of the learned Ombudsman. It

¶46

DBP No.75/2011

¶47

-:3:-

¶48

shows that the amounts have been recovered from the employees

¶49

concerned.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for one of the employees as well

¶51

as Subhilash and Kanakamani submitted that as against them there are no

¶52

allegations that they have taken the money without performing any work.

¶53

We are not finally pronouncing on the issue since it is upto the

¶54

Board to consider all the matters and take appropriate action as enjoined

¶55

by law. We grant liberty for the same. The D.B.P is accordingly disposed

¶56

of.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶59

Sd/- (B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶60

¶61

\True copy// P.A to Judge

Sri.T.K.Ramachandran v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.T.K.Ramachandran v. Cochin Devaswom Board

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

Koya, S/O.Aboobaker Vs Thachoth Ayamma, W/O.Mohamed

Rajappan Asari.G. Vs State of Kerala

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Sri.R.S.Anoop Chandran Vs Tdb, Rep.by Its Secretary

Balakrishnan Vs C.Muhammedali

S.Sudheeshkumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board & Others