IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36042 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T. HAREESH NAMBOODIRI AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN MELSANTHI (CHIEF PRIEST) UNDER SUSPENSION VARAKKAL DEVASWOM, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT THARUPPAYIL ILLOM, P.O.PERUMANNUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD KOZHIKODE. 2. ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT, TRUSTEE SHREE VARAKKAL DEVASWOM, P.O.BHALAPPURAM,CALICUT. 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHREE VARAKKAL DEVASWOM, WEST HILL,KOZHIKODE. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SC FOR MDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.36042 of 2009 (A) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Shri.M.C.Sen, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner is the Melsanthi of Shree Varakkal Durga Devi Temple at Kozhikkode. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent on 21/10/2009 placing the petitioner under suspension for the misconducts mentioned therein. Subsequently, Ext.P5 memo of charges dated 26/11/2009 was issued to the petitioner proposing to proceed against the petitioner. On its receipt, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 explanation. It is at that stage, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2. 3. On a reading of Ext.P2 order, this Court cannot say that even prima facie, it does not disclose a case of misconduct warranting action against the petitioner. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the said order has been issued by an incompetent person, and nor has the petitioner succeeded in establishing WP(C) No.36042/2009 -2- malafides. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P2 order passed by the disciplinary authority, the 2nd respondent. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner has a complaint that he has not so far been paid subsistence allowance. An employee placed under suspension is entitled to be paid subsistence allowance in terms of the Rules. This the 2nd respondent shall ensure on production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Yet another aspect, which needs to be mentioned, is the requirement to expedite the disciplinary proceedings. As already seen, charge sheet has been issued and statement of defence also has been filed. Therefore, it is for the disciplinary authority to appoint an enquiry officer and ensure that the enquiry is completed on an expeditious basis. This the 2nd respondent shall do. Enquiry and other proceedings against the petitioner shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg