IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 2662 of 2006(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K. ANIL KUMAR, HELPER-CUM-CARE TAKER, PUTHIVEDOM DEVASWOM, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.451 EWS, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-20. 2. P.G. GOPALAKRISHNAN, HELPER-CUM-CARE TAKER, PAZHAYANNOOR DEVASWOM, KOCHI, RESIDING AT MANAKKATHU THAZHATHU HOUSE, V.P. MARAKKAR ROAD, TOLL GATE, EDAPPALLY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ,SC,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.2662 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Helpers-cum-Care Takers under the Cochin Devaswom Board. While they were working at Siva Temple at Ernakulam, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them for misappropriation of amounts received from a devotee for performing a 'pooja' in the temple which ended in Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders, imposing punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect along with fine of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioners. The petitioners are challenging those orders. According to them, they have not been given sufficient opportunity to defend themselves before passing the orders of punishment. The contention of the petitioners is that no enquiry was conducted and no witness was allowed to be cross examined by the petitioners or their representatives. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, is their contention. They would raise a further contention that in the complaint, based on which the disciplinary W.P.(c)No.2662/06 2 proceedings were initiated, there was no allegations of misappropriation but, the only allegation was that the 'pooja' for which the devotee had paid the money was not conducted for which only the 'Melsanthi' is responsible. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board, wherein they take the stand that the disciplinary proceedings were finalised after complying with all the procedures prescribed under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which have been adopted by the Cochin Devaswom Board in respect of their employees. According to the respondents, charge sheets were issued to the petitioners. A common enquiry was conducted against both of them, in which the petitioners participated fully. According to the respondents, on being found guilty by the enquiry officer, the petitioners were given show cause notices to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be imposed on them to which they had submitted Exts.R1 (e1) and R1(e2) replies, in which they have no case that they have not been given sufficient opportunity to defend themselves. In respect of the other contention, the W.P.(c)No.2662/06 3 respondents would contend that a devotee by name Sri. T.K. Raju had paid Rs.3,750/- for conducting a 'pooja' for which no receipt was issued and later on, reluctantly a receipt was issued, which was after four days. According to them on receipt of money the petitioners were bound to inform Melsanthi, without which the 'pooja' cannot be performed by the Melsanthi. It was treated as a temporary misappropriation and disciplinary proceedings were initiated, is the contention raised. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. As I have already stated, the main contention of the petitioners is that no enquiry has been conducted and no witness is allowed to be cross examined by the petitioners or their representatives. But they admit having received Exts.P3 and P3(a) show cause notices proposing punishment, wherein it has been specifically stated that in the enquiry conducted the petitioners were found guilty. But the petitioners have not produced the replies filed by them to the show cause notices which would show whether the petitioners had raised a contention regarding non-conducting of enquiry. But the W.P.(c)No.2662/06 4 respondents have produced the same as Ext.R1(e1) and R1 (e2). A reading of the same would go to show that they had absolutely no contention of violation of principles of natural justice at all. They do not contend that no enquiry had been conducted. In fact, their only contention was that the complainant had no case of any misappropriation and that the 'pooja' for which he had paid the money was not actually conducted. In the enquiry, it was found that the receipt for the amount of Rs.3,750/- was given after four days. Therefore, the petitioners had kept the money to themselves for four days without accounting for the same. The enquiry proceedings would go to show that the complainant had stated that he had repeatedly requested for the receipt for the amount and it was very reluctantly that ultimately that receipt was given. That would go to show that the intention of the petitioners were to misappropriate the amounts and when the complainant insisted on issue of a receipt, they had no other go but to issue the receipt. The respondents were gracious enough to accept the same as only a temporary misappropriation which I am of opinion was too lenient to the W.P.(c)No.2662/06 5 petitioners. I am of opinion that in the present day scenario, when allegations of corruption in Devaswom Boards are increasing, the Devaswom Boards should take a very stringent stand in the matter of imposition of punishment for corruption, failing which they will not be able to contain corruption in Devaswom Boards. In so far as in this case the guilt of the petitioners have been proved in an enquiry conducted for that purpose, I am of opinion that the Board has been lenient in the matter of imposition of punishment by restricting the punishment to barring of one increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against the impugned orders and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.2662/06 6 W.P.(c)No.2662/06 7