The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the removal of a temple employee (karanma). The court held that under Section 28 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the Board has absolute control and the removal was valid after giving sufficient opportunity.
The Writ Petition was dismissed leaving the removal order untouched.
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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/14TH PHALGUNA, 1937
WP(C).No. 4912 of 2007 (I) ---------------------------
PETITIONER:
SUNIL.S., SREEBHAVAN, VAKATHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S): --------------
R,R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB R,R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) R,R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.M.JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4912 of 2007 (I)
A P P E N D I X
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.O.C 8487/03/Mis.1 DT.11.2.04. EXT.P-2a: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE R.O.C.6041/03/Mis.A DT.3.9.04. EXT.P-2b: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT.2.12.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.26.9.2004. EXT.P4: ENQUIRY REPORT NO.R.O.C.528/05/Enq. EXT.P5: OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.10.12.2005 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: ORDER NO.316. DT.8.2.2007.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXT.R1A: TRUE COPY OF THE SPOT MAHAZAR PREPARED ON 8.2.2007.
EXT.R1B: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER NO.218 DT.12.2.2007. EXT.R1C: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ROC NO.8487/03/MCS-3 DT.25.1.2007 OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD.
EXT.R1D: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SGO ON 5.12.2006 AT 10.30 P.M.
EXT.R1E: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3 SGO ON 2.12.2006.
EXT.R1F: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR FROM THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R1G: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, HARIPAD.
EXT.R1H: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SROC NO.6041/03/Mis C DT.11.8.2005 OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S TO JUDGE
P.V ASHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who was working as a karanma Kazhakom in the Major Manikandapuram Temple, has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 letter of the Sub Group Officer, by which he was informed that he was removed from service.
2
W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I
show cause why he should not be removed from service and why proceedings should not be initiated to get another member of the family nominated in his place to perform the duties of Kazhakam. By submitting Ext P3 explanation dated 26.9.2004, petitioner denied the allegations against him and explained the duties performed by him. Petitioner has produced another show cause notice Ext P2(b) dated 2.12.2006 issued by the Sub Group Officer, calling for his explanation on the allegations that he was not performing the duties assigned to him; he was not interested in protecting the interest of the temple and the devotees, causing very serious complaints against him.
W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I 3
that the same is cryptic and does not contain any reason. It is also alleged that the order of termination is passed without hearing him and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioner is that the inquiry officer examined only one witness, that too, a person who retired from service in April, 2004 and the order is passed after an year of the inquiry report.
4
W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I
no response to it. Therefore, a substitute was engaged in his place. Producing Ext.R1A mahazar, the respondents have stated that Ext.R1(c) order was served on the petitioner on 8.2.2007; but he refused to put his signature in the copy to acknowledge the same.
5
W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I
conducted; copy of the report was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner has again submitted his representation as against the inquiry report. Apart from insubordination, there were complaints against the petitioner from the local devotees also. The Board arrived at a decision to remove the petitioner. Simultaneously a letter was issued to the senior member of the family requesting to nominate another member as Karanma. By Ext.R1(b) letter dated 12.2.2007, Sri.T.K.Ramawarrier, the senior most member of the Karanma family to which the petitioner belonged, was requested to nominate another member to perform the duties of Karanma pointing out the decision of the Board taken on 25.1.2007 as against the petitioner. It was by Ext.R1(c) order dated 25.1.2007 that the Board found that the petitioner committed serious dereliction of duties and it was necessary to replace the petitioner by another eligible and competent member of the family.
6
W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I
Act provides as follows:
(2) Whenever it is reported that owing to incompetency, negligence or other cause, any Karanma service is not being regularly performed, or that an alienation of Karanma service or of the property, Thiruppuvaram or other emolument attached thereto, has been effected by the Karanma holder or by any member or members of the Karanma family, the Board shall give due notice of the charge to the head of the family and the next senior member, and also to such other members of the Karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary, and if after hearing their objections, if any, the Board is satisfied that there has been an alienation of the Karanma service of the property or of the Thiruppuvaram or of the other emoluments attached thereto or that there has been a failure to perform the service properly or regularly, the Board shall suspend, remove, determine, cancel or deal with in any other manner the Karanma right of the family to the service.
7
W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I
received regarding the incompetency, negligence or other cause in regularly performing any Karanma service, the Board, after notice to the head of the family or such other members of the Karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary, and after hearing their objection, if the Board is satisfied that there has been failure to perform the service properly or regularly, it shall suspend, remove, determine, cancel or deal with in any other manner the Karanma right of the service to the servants.
8
W.P(C) No.4912 of 2007-I
testimony that the findings in the inquiry are rendered; Ext.P6 order was passed after more than one year after he submitted objection, etc.
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
P.V.ASHA Judge
rtr/rkc
/true copy/
P.S to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the removal of a karanma employee from temple service was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
Whether Section 28 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 requires a full-fledged inquiry before removal of a karanma.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of removal when the Board acted within its statutory control.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SUNIL.S.
THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THE SUB-GROUP OFFICER, MAJOR MANIKANDA PURAM TEMPLE
RAMA WARRIER
P.V. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
