SASIKUMAR Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this Original Petition is employed as a watchman at the Avanipuram Devaswom, Varkala Group, under the Travancore devaswom Board. PETITIONER has completed 19 years of service and there has not been any complaint against him so far. He is also the General Secretary of devaswom Employees Union, which is apart of Devaswom Employees Front, which was formed by bringing under one banner the Devaswom Employees Union and seven other Unions and Associations. This coming together under one banner was insisted to because of the judgment of this Court in O. P. No. 3821/90 in which it was laid down that Union activities were not conducive in Temples and their service in a temple not being like service in other branches. According to the petitioner, he being the Secretary of the Devaswom Employees Union, was informed by members of the Union who were on Bhandaram special duty that one bundle of 100 notes of Rs. 500/- totaling Rs. 50,000/- was missing. Then the petitioner filed a representation before the President of the Travancore devaswom Board, copy of which is produced as Ext. P1. Thereafter, petitioner received a letter of the Vigilance Officer, travancore Devaswom Board dated 21. 12. 2000 asking him to appear before the vigilance Officer to give evidence in the matter regarding the complaint about missing notes bundle in Sabarimala Bhandaram. That letter is produced as Ext. P2. Thereafter, the Devaswom Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 19. 1. 2001 to the petitioner, to show cause why action should not be taken against him. PETITIONER submitted a reply to the Devaswom Commissioner, copy of which is produced as Ext. P4. In Ext. P3 show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner has caused a news item to be published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 24. 12. 2000 regarding the missing of the notes from the Bhandaram. It is stated that this is bringing down the reputation of the management and unnecessarily interfering with the work of the employees. Hence the petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him. PETITIONER filed a reply, Ext. P4. In Ext. P4, petitioner admits that he gave a representation before the Devaswom Board. But he has stated that he has not given any publication in the newspaper. Hence, according to him, there is nothing to enquire because whatever he had informed the Board was in the interest of the Board. On 9. 2. 2001 petitioner received the suspension order which is signed by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The suspension order is produced as Ext. P5. The suspension order is issued on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer dated 30. 12. 2000. Pursuant to the order of suspension petitioner was relieved. It is challenging the suspension order, the Original Petition is filed.

(2.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that proper person to issue the suspension order is the Devaswom Commissioner. THE Devaswom board cannot issue the suspension order. Secondly, it is stated that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct. He has filed a representation before the Board of Directors, bringing to their notice certain irregularies that is being practised at the site of the Bhandaram. He has further stated that he has not brought to the notice of the newspaper regarding the news item. As a matter of fact, the Devaswom Board has not enquired whether the news item was published at the instance of the petitioner. Further the news item was not given by the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, travancore Devaswom Board. It admits the receipt of the representation by the petitioner. It is stated that the matter was enquired through the Vigilance officer and it was found that there was no substance in the complaint. It further assumes that the publication in the newspaper was made on the request of the petitioner and that it affects the Travancore Devaswom Board considerably. It is further stated that, in that view of the matter, the suspension order is issued and further stated that enquiry will be conducted soon. Both the parties cited certain decisions.

(3.) IN this context, it has to be noted that petitioner is working as a watcher. Even admitting for argument sake that the petitioner has committed a misconduct, we do not think it necessary to suspend him because continuance of the petitioner under the Travancore Devaswom Board will not in any way affect the enquiry which is initiated under Ext. P3. There is another aspect also. Petitioner is the general secretary of a Union and further he is also a devotee of the temple. It cannot be said that he can not bring to the notice of the Board, if any irregularity is committed. Taking all these things into consideration, we think that it is not a fit case to suspend the petitioner from service. Hence, we quash Ext. P5 - the suspension order, and direct the Devaswom Board to reinstate the petitioner immediately. Further enquiry under Ext. P3 shall be continued and such enquiry shall be completed within a period of six months from today. We are not deciding the competency of the Devaswom Board to issue the suspension order since we are quashing the order on merits. The O. P. is disposed of as above. . .