Disposed

K.K.Sajeevu v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC2 Dec 2014WP(C)/29844/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a suspended Revenue Inspector. Instead of adjudicating merits, the court directed the President of the Devaswom Board to consider the petitioner's representation for revocation of suspension expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the President of the respondent Board to consider the petitioner's representation for revocation of suspension within two months.

K.K.Sajeevu Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 29844 of 2014 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.K.SAJEEVU, REVENUE INSPECTOR, THIRUVILLAMALA GROUP NO 11 R.1, C.D.B, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SWARAJ ROUND,

¶11

THRISSUR-680 020

¶12

2. THE FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND,

¶13

THRISSUR-680 020

¶14

3. VIGILANCE OFFICER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND,

¶15

THRISSUR-680 020

¶16

4. SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND,

¶17

THRISSUR-680,020

¶18

BY SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPATT, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

WP(C).No. 29844 of 2014 (E)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO M-10869/2014 DTD 7/11/2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶25

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 18/11/2014 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.29844 of 2014 E

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2014

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶35

Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Revenue Inspector working in the first respondent Devaswom Board, was placed under suspension through Exhibit P1 as part of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that there are five Devaswom officers under the supervision of the petitioner and that one

¶37

WPC 29844/14

¶38

¶39

of them is alleged to have committed certain irregularities. According to him, the only role attributed to the petitioner is the alleged omission on his part in not reporting the interpolation of the cash book by the Devaswom Officer after the inspection of the records. Considering it to be a serious omission, the respondent Devaswom Board initiated disciplinary proceedings by placing the petitioner under suspension.

¶40

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively submitted on the merits of the matter, it can be seen from the record that the petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 representation to the President of the respondent Devaswom Board seeking revocation of suspension. It will meet the ends of justice if a direction is given to the said authority to consider the petitioner's Exhibit P2 representation in accordance with law.

¶41

WPC 29844/14 3

¶42

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Devaswom Board, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the President of the respondent Board to consider petitioner's Exhibit P2 representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶44

tkv

K.K.Sajeevu v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Sajeevu 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

C.K. Sajan Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

The Manager, Kambil Mopila Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil Pratheek P.J. Vs Union of India

Shakeela Beevi Vs State of Kerala

C.J.Mathai Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Musfina(Minor) Vs Controller of Government Examinations