Allowed

Abhilash.S v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC18 Mar 2016WP(C)/4715/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a Devaswom employee aggrieved by a transfer made after refusing a specific post. The Court held the transfer was punitive and void without enquiry, directing posting back to Thripunithura with permissible conditions.

What did the court decide?

The transfer order (Ext.P17) and subsequent transfer to Chowara Devaswom (Ext.P28) set aside. Petitioner directed to be posted back at Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura as Counter Clerk under super

Abhilash.S Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4715 of 2016 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ABHILASH.S AGED 36 YEARS

¶8

S/O.SUBRAHMANIAN, KADAMATHPARAMBIL, PARAPPILLIL ROAD THIRUVANGULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI

¶10

SRI.M.ASHOK KINI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRISSUR-680001.

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER

¶14

THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, TRISSUR-680001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA-682301.

¶16

DEVASWOM OFFICE

¶17

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANGULAM DEVASWOM THIRUVANGULAM-682305.

¶18

DEVASWOM OFFICER

¶19

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA DEVASWOM THRIPUNITHURA-682301.

¶20

R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-032016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 4715 of 2016 (L) :;2::

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT-P1: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2008.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P2: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2014.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P3: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.6.2014.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P4: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.3.2014.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P5: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2014.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P6: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.4.2015.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P7: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.1.2016.

¶32

EXHIBIT-P8: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16.1.2016.

¶33

EXHIBIT-P9: THE PHOTOCOPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 23.1.2016.

¶34

EXHIBIT-P10: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.2.2016.

¶35

EXHIBIT-P11: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANDARAM REGISTER.

¶36

EXHIBIT-P12: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.2.2016.

¶37

EXHIBIT-P13: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3.2.2016.

¶38

EXHIBIT-P14: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANDARAM REGISTER DATED 26.11.2014.

¶39

EXHIBIT-P15: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANDARAM REGISTER DATED 27.11.2014.

¶40

EXHIBIT-P16: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.2.2016.

¶41

EXHIBIT-P17: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.2.2016.

¶42

EXHIBIT-P18: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.2016.

¶43

EXHIBIT-P19: THE PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶44

EXHIBIT-P20: THE PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 18.3.2015.

¶45

EXHIBIT P21: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 8.1.2014

¶46

WP(C).No. 4715 of 2016 (L)

¶47

::3::

¶48

EXHIBIT P22: PHOTOCOPY OF HT ERELIVING CERTIFICATE DT 16.2.2016

¶49

EXHIBIT P23: PHOTOCOPY OF TH JOINING REPORT DT 19.2.2016

¶50

EXHIBIT P24: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST LETTE DT 22.2.2016

¶51

EXHIBIT P25: PHOTOCOPY of the REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASST.COMMISSIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

¶52

EXHIBIT P26: PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 16.08.2015

¶53

EXHIBIT P27: PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE DEVASWOM OFFICER

¶54

EXHIBIT P28: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 14.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶55

EXHIBIT P29: PHOTOCOPY of the LIST OF DEVASWOM AND TEMPLES COMING UNDER TRIPUNITHURA GROUP

¶56

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶57

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTSUMITTED BY SRI BABURAM

¶58

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VIGLANE OFFICER DT 8.12.2015

¶59

ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 26.12.2015

¶60

ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DT 15.01.2016

¶61

ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANTE COMMISSIONER DT 20.1.2016

¶62

ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION DT 6.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶63

ANNEXURE G: TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION DT 12.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 4715 of 2016

¶69

¶70

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2016

¶71

J U D G M E N T

¶72

The petitioner is aggrieved with the transfer made at

¶73

Ext.P17. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has been

¶74

constantly transferred from one place to another for reason of he being a whistle blower and having approached the Ombudsman appointed for the Devaswom Boards pointing out various irregularities occasioned in the temples. This Court would not look into such allegations at all since the only grievance projected herein is with respect to the transfer.

¶75

The petitioner had been serving as daily wage employee in various temples as a daily wage Counter Assistant and was eventually regularised by Ext.P11 dated 04.03.2013. The petitioner was then appointed as Counter Clerk at Kannamkulangara and transferred on 14.10.2014 to Pisharikovil

¶76

and then again to the Assistant Commissioner's Office on

¶77

WPC.No.4715/2016

¶78

: Page numbers :

¶79

17.10.2014. The petitioner at the time of the instant transfer was

¶80

working in the Poornathayeesha Temple, Tripunithura on 13.04.2015.

¶81

Admittedly the normal term permitted for an employee in a particular posting is three years. The petitioner is aggrieved with the abrupt transfer made to Thriprayar. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has aged parents to be looked after, who along with his wife and three year old son is staying at his house at Tripunithura. The petitioner also contends

¶82

that the transfer now made is mala fide.

¶83

The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the employees of the Board if making allegations before the Ombudsman, that would be appropriately defended and that is not the reason for the present transfer. The petitioner had been engaged near the sanctum sanctorum and his mis-behaviour towards the devotees was the reason for the present transfer. He

¶84

WPC.No.4715/2016

¶85

: Page numbers :

¶86

had also been then posted at the counter, which duty he refused to

¶87

undertake and it was in this context that the transfer was made. It

¶88

is also contended that the petitioner had been working under the

¶89

Thripunithura group for the last 7½ years.

¶90

With respect to the contention that the petitioner had

¶91

been working in Thripunithura itself for the last 7½ years , it is

¶92

to be noticed that the petitioner was regularised in service only on 04.03.2014 after which he has been transferred four times, including the present transfer. The petitioner had been posted at the Poornathrayeesa Temple, only on 13.04.2015. It is an admitted fact that the normal term of a particular person is three

¶93

years. If at all any allegations are raised against an employee, which would lead to a charge of misconduct, then definitely the employee would have to be proceeded with as per procedure established in law. The transfer effected as of now on the grounds

¶94

raised by the Devaswom Board, is in fact a punitive one without

¶95

WPC.No.4715/2016

¶96

: Page numbers :

¶97

conducting an enquiry into the same.

¶98

If the petitioner is assigned a duty and he refuses to discharge it, definitely the Devaswom Board could take appropriate proceedings against him and also if need be suspend the person so as to ensure smooth functioning of the temple . No such measure having been taken, the transfer in violation of the norms have to be interfered with. Otherwise it would lead to a punishment being imposed on the petitioner without he being given an opportunity to defend himself.

¶99

It is also to be noticed that at the last hearing date,

¶100

this Court had expressed its mind about the interference to be

¶101

caused to the transfer made, and had also directed the learned Standing Counsel to convey the same to the Devaswom Board. The

¶102

Board had presumably for reason of such opinion conveyed, transferred the petitioner to Chowra Devaswom which is closer to Thripunithura but still quite distant. In any event, the transfer

¶103

WPC.No.4715/2016

¶104

: Page numbers :

¶105

itself having been found to be bad, interference has to be caused

¶106

and the petitioner is directed to be posted back at Poornathrayeesa

¶107

Temple, Thripunithura but, only as a Counter Clerk. The

¶108

petitioner's conduct shall be supervised and if any untoward incident happens or the petitioner fails to discharge his duties the Board would be entitled to proceed against the petitioner. The Board shall immediately post the petitioner to the Poornathrayeesa

¶109

Temple, Thripunithura and the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the Executive Officer that he will carry out the

¶110

duties assigned to him and will not insist for any particular duty.

¶111

Ext.P17 is set aside and so is the subsequent transfer to

¶112

Chowara Devaswom evident from Ext.P28. Writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.

¶113

Sd/-

¶114

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶115

jma

¶116

//true copy// P.A to Judge

Abhilash.S v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash.S 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Thomas Koilparampil Vs Govt.Body of Rcc

State Planning Board Staff Co.Op.Society Vs State Planning Board

C.H.Usha Vs State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Namboodiri Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom

C.P.Sajan Vs the Chairman, Cape

K.P.Pavithran Vs K.S.E.B.