P.V. HARIDAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the General Secretary of the Thrippallur Siva Temple Renovation Committee has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3, P6 and P8 orders issued in connection with disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 5th respondent, who was working as a Vazhipadu clerk in the said temple. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that, on an allegation that the 5th respondent had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 75,000/ -, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said respondent and he was suspended with effect from 09.08.2002. In the disciplinary proceedings that ensued, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and dismissed from service with effect from 04.08.2003. The 5th respondent appears to have challenged the said dismissal order before the 3rd respondent, in an appeal preferred in accordance with Section 61 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the proceedings before the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent was arrayed as a respondent and on account of the fact that the 4th respondent, in the proceedings before the 3rd respondent, did not produce any records to substantiate the contentions of the respondents, the dismissal order passed against the 5th respondent was set aside by the 3rd respondent, and a direction was given to reinstate the 5th respondent with back wages. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner herein, preferred an appeal against Ext.P3 order before the 2nd respondent. The said appeal, however, was dismissed by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P6 order wherein the finding is to the effect that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person for the purposes of maintaining an appeal under Section 61 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was thus dismissed as not maintainable. Although, the petitioner preferred a further appeal against Ext.P6 order before the 1st respondent State Government, the Government also by Ext.P8 order rejected the appeal and confirmed the finding in Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3, P6 and P8 orders passed by the 3rd, 2nd and 1st respondents respectively.

(2.) I have heard Sri.Sajan Vargheese, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, Sri.Mahesh V.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, Sri.Mohan C.Menon, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would lay stress on the provisions of Section 61 of the Act, which deals with an appeal to the Commissioner, and state that "any person aggrieved" by any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner could, within one month from the date of the publication of the order or the receipt thereof, as the case may be, appeal to the Commissioner. It is his contention that the phrase "any person aggrieved" would take within its fold any person interested in the affairs of the temple and therefore, as the General Secretary of the Temple Renovation Committee, and as a person interested in seeing that the losses if any, suffered by the temple was restored to the temple, he was a person aggrieved by Ext.P3 order that was passed in favour of the 5th respondent in the disciplinary proceedings against the said respondent. It is on this contention that he assails Exts.P3, P6 and P8 orders, the last mentioned two, of which orders, had the effect of dismissing the appeals preferred by the petitioner as not maintainable.