IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 27582 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M.GANGADHARAN NAIR, MANJULAVIL HOUSE, KUNDLIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. M.JANARDHANAN NAIR, MANJULAVIL HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR P.O., ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, PANAYANKULANGARA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, KUNDALIYOOR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E. (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-20. ADDL.R3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, MALAPPURAM. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.14924/2006 DT 30/6/11) ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN FOR R1 SRI.K.JAGADEESH FOR R1 SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.V.RENJU FOR R1 SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27582/06 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TYPED COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 28.1.98. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DT 6.2.98 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 19.2.98. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DT 5.3.98 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER ON 20/7/98. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE notice DT 31.10.98. EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DT 10.11.98 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DT 8.12.98. EXT.P11: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.12.98 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER COMMON JUDGMENT OS 1339/98 AND OS 1545/99. EXT.P13: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ORDER SHEET. EXT.P15: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT DT 28.8.2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P16: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 30.8.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P17: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 24.7.98 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WPC NO.27582/06 -2- EXT.P18: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.06 ISSUED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(A): TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.24229/1998 DT 27.8.2003. EXT.R1(B): TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HR&CE IN OA NO.19 OF 2003 DT 16.8.2006. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27582 OF 2006 (H) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the first petitioner, he is the hereditary trustee of a private temple. Although there is a dispute about the nature of the temple, it is a fact that the 1st respondent was a santhikkaran in the said temple. 2. First petitioner initiated disciplinary action against the 1st respondent. Memo of charge was issued and his explanation was also filed where he even disputed the competence of the first petitioner to initiate disciplinary action. Finally, by Ext.P5, an enquiry officer was appointed and Ext.P6 is the notice issued by the enquiry officer requiring the 1st respondent to appear before him for enquiry on 28/7/98. Ext.P17 is the reply filed, which shows that the 1st respondent was not inclined to co-operate with the enquiry. Enquiry was held and Ext.P7 is the enquiry report finding the 1st respondent guilty of the misconducts. Along with Ext.P8 show cause notice, report was furnished to the delinquent and Ext.P9 is his representation. Finally by Ext.P10, punishment of dismissal was imposed on the delinquent. WPC No. 27582/06 :2 : 3. Aggrieved by the punishment, 1st respondent filed Ext.P11 appeal before the 2nd respondent, the appellate authority. Notice was issued, petitioners entered appearance and filed Exts.P13 and P15 objections. Finally, Ext.P16 order was passed by the 2nd respondent. By this order, he set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent with full backwages. It is challenging Ext.P16, the writ petition is filed. 4. Although several contentions on the merits have been raised by the petitioners as also the 1st respondent, I do not think it necessary for this Court to go into those controversial issues in this writ petition. I say so for the reason that I am satisfied that Ext.P16 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent without any application of mind. A reading of Ext.P16 shows that he has narrated the case of the first respondent and referred to the rules framed under Section 49(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and held that a perusal of the impugned order would show that the formalities required under law for termination of service of an employee has not been complied with. On this basis, he set aside the punishment and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The order does not disclose in WPC No. 27582/06 :3 : what respect the formalities have not been complied with. Therefore, this order deserves to be set aside as the 2nd respondent has not considered any of the relevant aspects while dealing with the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent. 5. For the aforesaid reason, Ext.P16 order is set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the 2nd respondent, who will issue notice to the parties, hear them and pass fresh orders in the matter duly adverting to the contentions of both sides and in accordance with law. This the 2nd respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months. 6. It is clarified that it will be open to the parties to file supplementary pleadings, if they so desire. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp