MURALEEDHARAN Vs. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as the Manager of Sree Vairamkode Bhagavathi Devaswom, Thirunavaya, was placed under suspension by Ext.P3 order pending enquiry. The order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing R.P.No.15/2024. Ext.P4 is the memo of charges issued to the petitioner and Ext.P5 is the reply submitted by the petitioner. By Ext.P6, the period of suspension was extended.

(2.) The 2nd respondent passed Ext.P7 interim order in R.P.No.15/2024 directing payment of subsistence allowance. However, the 5th respondent did not comply with the directions in Ext.P7. By Ext.P8 order dtd. 21/3/2025, the 2nd respondent allowed R.P.No.15/2024, set aside the order of suspension and directed the Executive Officer to reinstate the petitioner pending disciplinary action. Though the petitioner approached the 5th respondent for reinstatement, he was not reinstated. The petitioner submits that the 5th respondent had kept himself away from the Temple in order to avoid reinstating the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon approached the 4th respondent requesting to take appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the order of reinstatement issued by the Commissioner. The petitioner again approached the Commissioner pointing out that the 5th respondent is refusing to comply with the directions to reinstate. The petitioner has produced several other communications to show that he has been approaching the respondents for the purpose of reinstatement. Petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) No.16748/2025. The 5th respondent also filed WP(C) No.13095/2025. The writ petition filed by the 5th respondent was thereafter withdrawn for the reason that statutory revision preferred against the order of the Commissioner is pending before the State Government. The 6th respondent thereafter issued Ext.P23 setting aside the order of the Commissioner finding that the order of suspension has to be challenged in an appeal under Sec. 49(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and a revision petition under Sec. 18 of the Act is not maintainable. It is challenging Ext.P23 that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Sec. 49 of the Act is extracted below: