IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26092 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.JAGADEESAN, SECURITY GUARD, MAMANIKKUNNU SREE MAHADEVI TEMPLE, MAMANAM, P.O.PERUVALATHUPARAMBU, IRIKKUR-670 593, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT "RAMALAYAM", KOLOLAM P.O., EDAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE TRUSTEE, MAMANIKKUNNU SREE MAHADEVI TEMPLE, MAMANAM, P.O.PERUVALATHUPARAMBU, IRIKKUR-670 593, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MAMANIKKUNNU SREE MAHADEVI TEMPLE, MAMANAM P.O., PERUVALATHUPARAMBU, IRIKKUR-670 593, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.26092 OF 2010(J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Security Guard of Mamanikkunnu Sree Mahadevi Temple, Mamanam, Irikkur, appointed on 2.11.2004. On the allegation that he is an accused in a counterfeit case, proceedings were initiated against him, resulting in Ext.P6 order of termination issued by the 2nd respondent, the Trustee. It appears that subsequently, the petitioner moved the 2nd respondent himself seeking review of Ext.P6 order and accordingly by Ext.P9 proceedings, the 2nd respondent reinstated the petitioner in service subject to approval by the Commissioner. When the approval of the Commissioner was sought, Commissioner issued Ext.P10 communication dated 27.3.2010 requiring the 2nd respondent to produce the documents mentioned therein, for considering the matter. It is also stated that since the petitioner is an accused in a counterfeit case, he should be kept away from the official duties. In pursuance to Ext.P10, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P11, terminating the petitioner from service pending final orders in the WPC.No.26092 /2010 :2 : matter. Although the petitioner sought review of Ext.P11 by filing Ext.P12, 2nd respondent did not pass any orders and it is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. Although learned standing counsel contended for the position that Ext.P9 order itself is without jurisdiction, I do not think that, at least at this stage of the proceedings, this court should go into the said controversy. A reading of Ext.P9 itself shows that the said order was issued subject to the approval of the Commissioner. Ext.P10 also shows that the first respondent is seized of the issue. Therefore, in order to give a quietus to the whole controversy I feel it is appropriate that the first respondent take a final decision in the manner. In order to enable the first respondent to do so, the following directions are issued. 3. On the production of a copy of the judgment, the 2nd respondent shall produce the documents mentioned in Ext.P10 before the Ist respondent within 2 weeks. It is directed that on production of the documents by the 2nd respondent as above, the first respondent shall decide the matter with notice to the petitioner WPC.No.26092 /2010 :3 : as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/