IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P.(C).No.3553 of 2005(W) --------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------ V.K.RAMA WARRIER, VADAKKEDATHU WARRIAM (SREELAKSHMI) VEEDU, VAKATHANAM P.O., MANIKANTAPURAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS:- ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD OFFICE NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIKARIYOOR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.NARARAJ NARAYANAN. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER,SC, TDB ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SC, TDB . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).No.3553/2005-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the communication No.726/2.9.93 dated 2.9.1993 issued by the third respondent. Ext.P2: True copy of the communication No.176/11.2.99 dated 11.2.99 issued by the third respondent. Ext.P3: True copy of the memo of charges No.ROC No.31/93/Enquiry dated ` 20.7.1994 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3(a): True copy of statement of allegations No.ROC.No.31/93/Enquiry dated 20.7.1994 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P4: True copy of the Enquiry reportNo.ROC.No.31/93/Enquiry dated 28.2.1995 submitted by the Enquiry Commissioner. Ext.P5: True copy of the representation dt.7.2.1995 submitted before the 2nd respondent by the petitioner. Ext.P6: True copy of the show cause No.ROC.4918/92/Est.1 dated 21.3.1995 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P7: True copy of the written statement submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dated 17.4.1995. Ext.P8: True copy of the proceedings No.ROC.4918/92/Est.1 dated 21.8.1995 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P9: True copy of the representation dt.6.10.1995 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P10: True copy of the representation dt.3.2.1996 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P11: True copy of the representation dated 1.7.1996 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P12: True copy of the representation dated 11.10.1996 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P13: True copy of the representation dated 20.3.1997 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P14: True copy of the representation dated 10.11.1998 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. - 2 - WP(C).No. 3553 of 2005(W) Ext.P15: True copy of the judgment dt.3.6.2003 in C.C.No.2/2000 of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ettumanoor. Ext.P16: True copy of the representation dt.29.10.2003 submitted before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P17: True copy of the communication No.ROC No.4918/93/Est.1 dated 11.12.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P18: True copy of the representation dated 9.3.2004 submitted before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P19: True copy of the Communication No.ROC. No.4918/93/Est.1 dated 18.3.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- NIL. (True copy) H.L.Dattu, C.J. & T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3553 of 2005-W ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. Petitioner before us is a former employee of the 2nd respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board. We say that he is a former employee only because he was dismissed from service by the Board by its order dated 21.8.1995 (Exhibit P8). 2. It appears, on the same set of charges alleged in the charge memo, the second respondent-Board had filed a criminal case against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is further stated that the jurisdictional Magistrate has passed an order honourably acquitting the petitioner in the said criminal case. 3. After the disposal of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had filed representations before the respondents inter alia requesting them to reconsider the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. The respondents, after considering the request so made by the petitioner in the representations so made by him, have passed Exhibits P17 and P19. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner not only questions Exhibit P4 and the order of dismissal passed by the respondent-Board (Exhibit P8) and also the orders dated 11.12.2003 (Exhibit P17) and 18.3.2004 (Exhibit P19) passed by the Board on his representations. 5. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, Dr.K.P.Kylasanatha Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court W.P.(C).No.3553 of 2005-W - 2 - at this stage may only quash Exhibit P17 and P19 orders issued by the respondent-Board on the ground that the Board has not considered the representations filed by the petitioner in a proper perspective. 6. Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board vehemently opposes the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. We have carefully perused the representations filed by the petitioner and also the orders passed by the respondent-Board, Exhibits P17 and P19. Having gone through those orders, in our opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner may be justified in contending that the Board has not considered those representations of the petitioner in a proper perspective. That only means that there is non-application of mind by the Board while considering the representation made by the petitioner. It is time and again observed by the Courts that even a quasi judicial authority is expected to assign its reasons while rejecting a request made by an aggrieved person by filing a representation. In that view of the matter, it is difficult for us to sustain Exhibits P17 and P19 orders issued by the Board. 8. Accordingly, we pass the following: Order (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) We set aside Exhibits P17 and P19 orders/endorsements issued by the respondent-Board. (iii) A direction is issued to the respondent-Board to reconsider the representations dated 29.10.2003 (Exhibit P16) and 9.3.2004 (Exhibit P18) by W.P.(C).No.3553 of 2005-W - 3 - the Board in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair Judge vku/-