BHARATH KUMAR Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk in the service of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The administration, control and management of the Devaswom is vested in a committee called "the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee", constituted under the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act 14 of 1978 (the Act, in brief).

(2.) An office file was started relating to allotment of rooms belonging to the Devaswom. The petitioner made some obnoxious noting in the file on March 3, 1984, making aspersive remarks about the head of the administration, namely the Administrator, and the Superintending Engineer. The remarks were uncalled for, and irrelevant in the file dealt with, apart from the gross impropriety of a minor minion like the petitioner, utilising an office file to cast aspersions on his superiors. Naturally this was treated as an act of indiscipline and insubordination, and the Administrator of the Devaswom charge sheeted the petitioner by his memo of charges Ext. P1 dated March 5, 1984, calling upon him to show cause why the penalty of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect should not be imposed on him. The petitioner showed cause by his reply Ext. P2. Far from being contrite, he attempted to justify his noting, at the same time claiming that his action was motivated by the bona fide intention of bringing the "emotions" of the employees of the Devaswom to the notice of the authorities. The Administrator was not however prepared to accept the explanation, and he passed the order Ext. P3. The Administrator took a serious view of the petitioner's irresponsible conduct which, he said, merited imposition of the penalty proposed in the notice to show cause Ext. P1. Still he took a lenient view of the matter, and imposed the lighter penalty of withholding increments for a period of six months with cumulative effect, as against the penalty of withholding increments for two years with cumulative effect, proposed in Ext. P1.

(3.) Despite the lenience shown, the petitioner challenged the order Ext. P3 in ' appeal Ext. P4, before the managing committee of the Devaswom, under Regulation24 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 framed under S.39 of the Act. His attempt in the appeal was to justify his conduct as part of his duty of constructive cooperation from the staff. He stated that a right to point out "deficiencies" was necessary for the proper growth of the institution, and that by stifling such right, it was apparent that "constructive cooperation" with the administration was becoming impossible. The service rules have to be interpreted in this "democratic" background. The penalty imposed on the petitioner should therefore be cancelled.