M. MANIKANDAN Vs. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE GURUVAYUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as a UD Clerk in E6 Sec. of the Guruvayur Devaswom, was placed under suspension with effect from 15.11.2008, in connection with disciplinary proceedings initiated against him,. He was served with a memo of charges dated 02.03.2009, that contained 12 charges alleging misappropriation of funds belonging to the Devaswom. By a reply dated 20.03.2009, the petitioner responded to the memo of charges. He was, thereafter, intimated by communication dated 31.03.2009 that Sri.Eashwara Pillai had been appointed as an Enquiry Officer in connection with the enquiry contemplated against him. While matters stood thus, by Ext.P6 communication dated 03.03.2011, the Administrator of the Devaswom Board informed the petitioner that the Managing Committee had decided to terminate his services, and he was asked to show cause as to why such action should not be proceeded with. The petitioner promptly preferred a reply dated 19.03.2011 stating that, as per the rules in force, he could not be terminated from service without holding an enquiry. Thereupon, by Ext.P8 communication dated 25.06.2011, the Managing Committee of the respondent Board appointed a new Enquiry Officer (Advocate Haridas) to proceed with the enquiry that was contemplated against the petitioner, pursuant to the charge memo issued to him. Inasmuch as the petitioner had been kept under suspension for more than three years by that time, by Ext.P9 order dated 30.04.2012, he was also reinstated in service pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings. By Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2012, the petitioner was then transferred to ALSS, Punnathurkotta. While so, citing the findings of the Vigilance Department, which had found the petitioner guilty of the offences charged against him, the petitioner was once again suspended from service by Ext.P11 order dated 11.10.2013. The petitioner challenged the said suspension order before this Court through W.P.(C).No.25983 of 2013. While there was no interim stay of suspension granted in the said case, it is stated that the writ petition was subsequently heard finally. The judgment in the said case, however, is yet to be pronounced. As regards the disciplinary proceedings itself, the facts in the writ petition would indicate that the proceedings continued and led to Ext.P21 enquiry report being drawn up by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, by Ext.P20 resolution, the Managing Committee resolved to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why the enquiry report should not be accepted and a major penalty imposed on the petitioner in connection with the findings in the enquiry report. Ext.P19 is the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, which also forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. By Ext.P22 reply dated 29.05.2015, the petitioner preferred a detailed reply to the show cause notice stating, inter alia, his objections to the acceptance of the enquiry report and to the proposal for imposition of a major penalty. By Ext.P24 decision of the Managing Committee, it was decided to impose the punishment of "dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment", on the petitioner, and further, to recover from him an amount of Rs.19,89,398.00 towards the loss sustained by the respondent Board on account of the actions of the petitioner. The decision of the Managing Committee was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P23 order dated 08.07.2015. In the writ petition, Exts.P23 and P24 are impugned.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, wherein the orders passed by the Managing Committee of the respondent Board are sought to be justified for the reasons stated therein. The counter affidavit deals with the procedure that was followed by the respondent Board in the matter of holding the enquiry against the petitioner, and points out that a fair procedure was followed in connection with the enquiry, and that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to engage a lawyer of his choice to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. It is also pointed out that, the documents that were relied upon by the respondent Board were all furnished to the petitioner, and his lawyer was granted ample opportunity for commenting upon the documents, as also cross examining various witnesses that were produced on behalf of the respondent Board. It is stated that, the petitioner, although given ample opportunity to adduce his own evidence, through witnesses of his choice, did not produce two witnesses, who were Bank Officers, despite having been given an opportunity to do so. It is further stated that, although, the person who was appointed as Presiding Officer initially by the respondent Board in the enquiry proceedings-Sri. A. Suresan, was subsequently nominated as one of the members of the Managing Committee of the Devaswom Board, apart from the meeting on 17.03.2015, he did not participate in any of the further meetings of the Managing Committee while considering the further course of action in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As regards the punishment imposed on the petitioner, it is stated that, the offences that stood proved against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings were sufficiently grave so as to justify the major punishment of dismissal from service as was imposed on the petitioner in the instant case.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent board.