IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28717 of 2008(R) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.NANDAKUMAR, DEVASWOM OFFICER, VENGANELLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28717/2008 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DTD.22/12/07. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 8/01/08. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 23/01/08. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 18/03/08. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 25/03/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 14/08/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28717 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was then working as the Devaswom Officer of Venganelloor Devaswom, was present during the Ekadasi festival at Sree Dhanwanthari Temple, Nelluvai, on 20.12.2007. There was a skirmish among the devotees at the time of Annadanam, and on the allegation that the petitioner's conduct at that time was unbecoming of a Board employee, he was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order dated 22.12.2007. When the said incident occurred, the President of the Cochin Devaswom Board was also present. Due to the timely intervention of the President, the dispute was settled. It was based on the report submitted by the President that the Board decided to place the petitioner under suspension. Hardly within a month thereafter, by Ext.P3 order passed on 23.1.2008, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Ext.P3 order was passed at the intervention of the service organisations which interfered on W.P.(C) No.28717 of 2008 2 behalf of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner deeply regrets whatever happened on 20.12.2007. By Ext.P3 order, the Board also decided to drop further proceedings against the petitioner. Later, by Ext.P4 order passed on 18.3.2008, the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as eligible leave. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 25.3.2008 before the Board and that was rejected by Ext.P6 order dated 14.8.2008. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P6 orders and prays for a direction to the respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty with all attendant benefits. 2. I have heard Sri.Anil Sivaraman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as the Board has decided to drop the W.P.(C) No.28717 of 2008 3 disciplinary proceedings, in retrospect, it would appear that the petitioner's suspension was wholly unwarranted. He further submits that in these circumstances, Exts.P4 and P6 orders cannot be sustained. 3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits that it was taking a lenient view and taking note of the regret expressed by the petitioner through the service organisations that the Board decided, on sympathetic grounds, to revoke the suspension, reinstate him in service and drop further proceedings against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner who was guilty of improper conduct, committed by him in the presence of President of the Board, has got away lightly and therefore he cannot be aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P6 orders. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. In my considered W.P.(C) No.28717 of 2008 4 opinion, on the materials on record, the challenge to Exts.P4 and P6 cannot be sustained. Ext.P1 discloses improper conduct on the part of the petitioner. Taking a sympathetic view, the Board decided to condone the lapses on his part, when he expressed his regret. By Ext.P3 order, the Board not only decided to reinstate the petitioner in service, but also to drop all further proceedings in the matter. Ext.P1 order of suspension was passed on 22.12.2007 and Ext.P3 order reinstating the petitioner was passed 23.1.2008. The petitioner was thus under suspension for about 33 days. By Ext.P4 order, the said period was ordered to be treated as eligible leave. On the materials on record, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Board to regularise the period of suspension as eligible leave is in any way arbitrary. The Board again reconsidered the matter, when the petitioner moved Ext.P5 representation. While passing Ext.P6 order, the Board took note of the fact that the Board had taken a lenient view, when it reinstated the petitioner in service. In these W.P.(C) No.28717 of 2008 5 circumstances, the challenge to Exts.P4 and P6 cannot be entertained. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.