IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 DBP.No. 33 of 2010() -------------------- COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------- P.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, LAKSHMI SADANAM, EDANAD P.O., PALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S):- ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, TDB AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL SC FOR TDB R1. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN. THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.Ramachandran Nair & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. ============================================ D.B.P.33/2010 ============================================ Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. 1.Heard the counsel for the complainant, standing counsel for the Devaswom Board and also amicus curiae for Ombudsman. 2.The complainant's D.C.R.G. was withheld on account of the alleged loss of Rs.75,185/- caused by him to the Devaswom Board. The total D.C.R.G. benefit due to the complainant was Rs.1,29,912/-. After adjusting Rs.75,185/-, the Devaswom Board had released the balance D.C.R.G. benefit to the complainant. Counsel for the complainant submitted that, going by the Kerala Service Rules, which applies to the complainant, the liability was not computed within three years DBP33/2010 -:2:- from retirement and so much so it could not be recovered. However, counsel for the Devaswom Board referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Pappachan v. State of Kerala (2008(4) K.L.T. 676) wherein this Court had held that discretionary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised to direct the Government to release the D.C.R.G. amount without recovering the loss caused by the employees. In this case the specific case of the Devaswom is that the complainant charged Rs.45 towards JALADHARA, which is a ritual in the temple and remitted Rs.7 in the temple retaining Rs.38 with him. According to the complainant, he had to spend for purchase of articles and the balance is accounted in that head. It is seen that Devaswom Board has given a rebate of Rs.14 for cost of materials purchased and the amount appropriated by the complainant was taken at Rs.24 per DBP33/2010 -:3:- JALADHARA. We feel the rationale applied by the Devaswom Board is quite acceptable. However, we notice that the practice followed by Devaswom in allowing the employees to purchase articles by themselves for the VAZHIVADU done by the parties is a practice which only encourages corruption among the Board officials. At the earliest it should be discontinued. In fact, the complainant's own case is that his predecessors in the same temple did the very same thing and they were not called upon to pay any loss to the Devaswom. We do not think improper things done by predecessors will be a justification for the complainant to retain surplus of collections received from devotees for VAZHIVADU done for them. In any case, having regard to the fact that complainant has retired long back and the loss estimated is also on a rough basis and in view of the recommendation by the Ombudsman, we DBP33/2010 -:4:- direct the Devaswom to release a further sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant retaining the balance Rs.25,185/- towards recoveries for the loss caused. D.B.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. sl.