SUBRAMANIAN Vs. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an Upper Division Clerk in the Guruvayur Devaswom. He joined service as a Lower Division Clerk on 13-1-1975 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in July 1982. According to him, he had 4 good service entries and one advance increment. In this original petition, petitioner challenges Exts.P12 and P13 orders passed by the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom. Ext. P12 order is passed at the culmination the disciplinary proceedings. In the year 1987, the Devaswam wanted 25 thottis and 25 koles for disciplining the elephants belonging to it and which are housed in Pennathur Kotta. The contract was awarded to one Sasi. He undertook to supply the aforesaid articles and to deliver the same in time. By December 1987, he had supplied only 7 thottis and 7 koles. It was also stated that he had expressed his inability to supply the balance articles before the conclusion of Trichur Pooram as he was busily engaged in the preparation and repair of the umbrellas for the Pooram festival.

(2.) SINCE the Devaswom was in dire need of the above articles to discipline the elephants, the petitioner who was then working as Live Stock Inspector, was asked to meet the contractor to impress on him the urgency of the above articles as there was procession of caparisoned elephants round the temple and it was not safe for the mahouts or devotees who come for darshan at the temple. According to the petitioner, as directed by the Devaswam, he met the contractor along with another Devaswom employee by name Sankaranarayanan; but the contractor expressed his inability and directed the petitioner to approach other persons to get the aforesaid articles and said that he will sign the vouchers for payment as the contract was still subsisting.

(3.) THE Administrator issued Ext. P1 order suspending the petitioner from service. According to Ext. P1, it is found that as a matter of fact, only 7 thottis had been supplied. But, according to the stock register, there is entry for the supply of 24 thottis. The order further states that the petitioner had fabricated documents to show that he had supplied 7 thottis and misappropriated an amount of Rs.1470/- Ext. P1 order is dated 27-6-1988. Thereafter, the Administrator issued Ext. P3 memo of charges. The memo of charges states that while the petitioner was working as Livestock Supervisor, he committed falsification of records by accounting certain numbers of thottis which were not actually purchased, but received payments on false vouchers which amounts to misappropriation of Devaswam money. The petitioner was required to show cause why disciplinary action as contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, should not be taken against him. The memo of charges was accompanied by a statement of allegations. From the statement of allegations, the following facts are revealed. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was received by the petitioner as advance for purchase of articles. He had produced vouchers for Rs. 1470/- and Rs. 2870/- The balance amount of Rs. 2130/- was refunded. According to the statement of allegations, 7 thottis were neither purchased nor supplied. It further states that the vouchers for Rs. 1,470/- and Rs. 2870/- appear to be fabricated. To Ext. P3, the petitioner gave a reply as Ext. P4. In Ext. P4, the petitioner contended that it is not correct to say that 7 thottis were not purchased. He gives an account that the thottis were entrusted with the respective mahouts and also gives explanation as to why he was not able to get the endorsement of the mahouts in the register. He denies that the vouchers were fabricated by him. According to him, it is as per the arrangement by the contractor, he paid the amounts in the name of the contractor. He further prayed for dropping the disciplinary proceedings. By Ext. P5 order dated 18/871988, the suspension order passed against the petitioner is cancelled and he was reinstated in service. Ext. P5 further states that the enquiry is completed. Thereafter, the petitioner received Ext. P6 order issued by the Administrator. That order states that the petitioner's suspension is not dropped by the evidence of the mahouts. It further states that on the basis of the evidence, the contractor had not received the amounts as stated in the vouchers. It comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has cheated the Devaswom and misappropriated an amount of Rs.4340/-. Petitioner gave Ext. P7 reply to Ext. P6 stating that if at all any evidence is given by the mahouts, that is out of animosity towards him. On 15-4-1989, the administrator issued Ext. P8 order, by which he imposed a punishment of reduction by four places in the seniority list of the petitioner and also for recovery of an amount of Rs.4340/-. By Ext. P9, the petitioner filed objections to Ext. P8. Ext. P10 also shows that the committee has decided to impose the punishment of reduction of four places in the seniority list of the petitioner and also for recovery of an amount of Rs.4340/- Finally, Ext. P12 order was issued imposing the punishments mentioned above. Ext. P13 is the proceedings of the administrator by which the punishment of reduction of rank is given effect to.