S.LALU Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be working as a "Kazhakam" in the Pazhanjikkavu Devasom, under the 1st respondent- Travancore Devaswom Board. He says that while he was so serving, on 29.09.2020 he was served with Ext.P3 order of suspension by the Commissioner of the 1 st respondent-Board, alleging that he had participated in an Anti-Government demonstration, and therefore, that he is being charge sheeted for disciplinary action. The petitioner says that Ext.P3 is wholly untenable and that no action can be pursued on its basis.

(2.) In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Subhash Chand, submitted, after taking me through the contents of Ext.P3, that what has been alleged against his client is that his photograph was seen in a newspaper, wherein he seemed to be participating in some kind of demonstration and that this clearly shows that there is absolutely no direct evidence that he had participated in any such demonstration at all. He then added that, even if his client had participated in an Anti-Government demonstration, it would not be justified for the Board to proceed against him, since it is the right of every citizen to take part in peaceful and legal protests, even against the Government, particularly when there is no allegation that he had done anything contrary to the interest of the institution he is serving. Sri.S.Subhash Chand, therefore, prayed that Ext.P3 be set aside and his client be directed to be reinstated in service immediately.

(3.) In response to the above, Sri.C.K.Pavithran, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devasom Board, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P3, the allegations against the petitioner is not merely that he had participated in an Anti-Government demonstration but that he had misused the leave granted to him and also that he had been on unauthorised absence for two days. He contends that all these clubbed together would clearly establish that there is a strong case for the petitioner being proceeded against for violation of disciplinary conduct. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed and the Board be allowed to complete the enquiry against the petitioner, which he says can be done not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.