IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14367 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.KRISHNAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. SRADA, WORKING AS SWEEPER (THALI), KOTTAMKULANGARA DEVASWOM TEMPLE, (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION) RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETTIL, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, AMBALAPUZHA GROUP, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 14367 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Though the petitioner challenges Exhibit-P6 Memo of Charges and the consequent summons issued by the Enquiry Officer, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Respondents have competence and authority to proceed with the enquiry. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in pointing out that Exhibit-P5 application for transfer submitted as early as in February, 2007 remains unresponded to. 3. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's request for a transfer out of Kottamkulangara within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the petitioner has expressed only one option in Exhibit-P5 taking note of the fact that she is only a Part-time Sweeper she may be permitted to submit two other options supplementing Exhibit- P5. If she does so within two weeks from today, it shall be W.P ( C) No. 14367 of 2008 2 considered and and taken in conjunction with Exhibit-P5 and orders passed as already directed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to engage the services of an Advocate in the enquiry proceedings. There is no statutory right to insist that she should be permitted to engage the services of an Advocate for a pure domestic enquiry. But there is no reason why she should not be permitted to engage the services of a co- employee. In the circumstances, if the petitioner makes an application before the Enquiry Officer to engage the services of an Advocate or any other employee, the same shall be dealt with on merits by the Enquiry Officer before further proceeding with the enquiry. An application in this behalf shall be made by the petitioner, if she so desires, within a period of two weeks from today. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 14367 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER W.P ( C) No. 14367 of 2008 2 25th May, 2007 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.