RANGASAMY AND M P MANIKANDAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGU SUBRAMANIYASWAMY THIRUKOIL MARUDAMALAI AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Sanitary Worker in the 2nd Respondent Temple with effect from 5.4.1996. Thereafter he was posted as Token Stamper. Subsequently, he was also posted as Driver from the year 2004. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No. 26557 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the Respondents to consider his representation dated 19.4.2007 to regularize his service, in the light of the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 22, P&AR Department dated 25.2.2006. This Court without going into the merits of the case, by an order dated 8.8.2007 directed the Respondents to consider his representation in accordance with law.

(2.) Thereafter, it transpires that the 1st Respondent Executive Officer has also recommended the case of the Petitioner for regularization and also to grant appropriate exemption from the educational qualification vide his recommendation dated 31.3.2008. The Petitioner was consistently making representations to the Respondents. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner was suspended by an order dated 17.9.2010 by the 2nd Respondent Chairman of the Trust Board of Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Temple, Marudamalai. It was stated that if the Petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he can file an appeal to the appellate authority in terms of Section 56(2) of the Act. The appellate authority is the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Coimbatore.

(3.) It is seen from the HR & CE Act that under Section 56(2), the appeal is only in respect of penalty and not for any suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to direct the Petitioner to approach the appellate authority to avail the appeal remedy. On the other hand, in the normal circumstances, this Court is not inclined to go into the desirability or otherwise of the suspension order. But, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it found that the suspension has to be interfered with. The gravamen of the charge against the Petitioner was started when the Petitioner made a complaint to the Inspector of the Police, Vadavalli Police Station on 28.5.2010 complaining that the Chairman and the other Trustees have called him by caste name and also insulted him and therefore he requested action to be initiated against them under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Even before any action could be initiated, on coming to know about the said complaint, the 2nd Respondent Board passed a Resolution No. 7 dated 28.8.2010 making several charges against the Petitioner including the charge relating to not-attending the duty without prior information with effect from 4.6.2010 and was trying to help persons who have put up shop by encroachment in the temple land and also without coming to work he has signed the attendance register on several days from March 2010 to August 2010. Therefore, it was felt that the Petitioner has acted against the interest of the temple and he should be placed under suspension. But the charge No. 1 related to the Petitioner's complaint to the police authorities and even before the said complaint could be enquired into, it is not known as to how the 2nd Respondent can frame a charge against the Petitioner as it will amount to interfering with the legal process initiated by the Petitioner. It is only because of this charge, the Court was inclined to call for a counter affidavit on the side of the Respondents.