N.R.Dileep Kumar v. The Cochin Devaswom Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/29TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31022 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- N.R.DILEEP KUMAR NEDUMTHURUTHIL, KALAMPOOR, PIRAVAM ERNAKULAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.M.H.BINDU RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THRISSUR - 680 020.

2. THE DEVASWOM OFFICER RAVIPURAM DEVASWOM, ERNAKULAM 682 016.

3. DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THRIPUNITHURA GROUP, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THRIPUNITHURA - 682 031.

4. THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THRISSUR - 680 020. R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD R BY SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 31022 of 2015 (C) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT. P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 14.8.2015 EXT. P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.8.2015 EXT. P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.8.2014 EXT. P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.8.2015 EXT. P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.9.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.4.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

--------------------------------------- EXT.R1(A) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 20.8.15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.R1(B) COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M3/97/2015 DTD. 18.9.15 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.R1(C) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26.8.15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

// TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== ====================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that he had been kept away from duty by an oral instruction. Allegations and counter allegations are made as to the incident, which had led to the petitioner being kept out of duty. It may not be proper for this Court, at this stage, to go into such allegations. But the fact remains that the petitioner has been not issued with any order and he was merely instructed not to come for duty.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also refers to Rule 122(2) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and Rules, 1950 part-IV, wherein, there is a specific stipulation that, if any charge of misconduct is alleged against an

employee, then necessarily, the charges have to be communicated to the delinquent employee. In the present case, the petitioner has been issued with a show cause notice at Ext.P1, for which Ext.P2 reply was also made. However, obviously the petitioner was not suspended by a written order nor is such suspension evident from Ext.P1 order.

3. The learned Counsel for the Devaswom Board submits that in fact it was known to both the Board and employee that the petitioner was kept away from duty only with respect to the incident, for which an explanation was sought for at Ext.P1. However, neither a charge sheet was issued nor an order of suspension made.

4. In such circumstance, the petitioner has to be immediately taken back to employment. The Devaswom Board would be entitled to proceed with any enquiry if so advised. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to the entire salary and

allowances during the period when he was kept out of service. The writ petition would stand allowed with the above reservation. No costs.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/21 /10 /2015 // true copy // P.A to Judge.