CHAIRMAN, TRUSTEE BOARD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the Chairman of the Trustee Board of Tirurkkad Devaswom, Tirurkkad, Malappuram District, is aggrieved by Ext.P6 second appellate order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the second respondent, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE), whereby the impugned penalty proceedings against the 5th respondent has been interfered with.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: The 5th respondent, who was the Shanti/priest of the Tirurkkad Siva Temple, was dismissed from service by Ext.P3 penalty order dated 19.1.2005. The 5th respondent being aggrieved by Ext.P3, had preferred the statutory first appeal before the 3rd respondent, Deputy Commissioner, by virtue of the provisions under Section 49(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The 3rd respondent, who is the first appellate authority, passed Ext.P4 appellate order dated 23.11.2005, whereby the above said first appeal of the 5th respondent was dismissed. Thereupon, the 5th respondent preferred the statutory second appeal as per Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent, Commissioner (HR and CE), who is the statutory functionary concerned in the matter of deciding the second appeal. Ext.P5(a) is the petition to condone the delay in submitting Ext.P5 second appeal. The said delay was condoned and the second respondent Commissioner passed Ext.P6 order dated 16.10.2006, whereby the impugned penalty order of dismissal was set aside, with liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh enquiry proceedings.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up for consideration before this Court today, both sides pointed out that in similar situation this Court has rendered a judgment dated 14.8.2012 in W.P.(C) No.1242/2007. In the above said W.P.(C) No.1242/2007, another employee, viz., the temple clerk one Sri.C.Anilkumar, was subjected to similar proceedings as faced by the 5th respondent herein. He was also imposed with a penalty order of dismissal, which in turn was upheld by the first appellate authority, and the second appellate authority, the 2nd respondent Commissioner herein, passed a similar order as in the impugned Ext.P6, whereby the penalty order against the above said Sri.C.Anilkumar was set aside with liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh against the said delinquent employee. This Court, as per judgment rendered on 14.8.2012 in W.P.(C) No.1242/2007, interfered with the said second appellate order by quashing the same and directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider the second appeal afresh after hearing both the parties and pass a reasoned order, within a period of three months.