IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16507 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.T.K.DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.P.KUBERAN, MUNDUT ILLAM, CHAVANPUZHA, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, KARIMBAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 142.(Corrected) T.T.K. DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.P.KUBERAN, MUNDUT ILLAM, CHAVANPUZHA, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, KARIMBAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 142. ("Secretary" is corrected as "Executive Officer" as per order dated 3/6/2008 in I.A.No.6815/2008) BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SRI.K.JITHIN SMT.V.J.SAFEENA SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E (ADMINISTRATION) DEPTT., KOZHIKODE-20. 3. E.K.BABU, EXECUTIVE OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION), T.T.K.DEVASWOM, ELAYIDATH KOLASSERRY ILLAM, MULLOOL P.O., PATTUVAM, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 143. 4. K.UNNIKRISHNAN (ENQUIRY OFFICER), RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE, 19/22, SREENILAYAM, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-2. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.16507 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Taliparamba, Tlrichambaram and Kanhirangad Devaswom (hereinafter referred to as "T.T.K. Devaswom") represented by the present Executive Officer of the T.T.K.Devaswom has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P10. Third respondent, who was the Executive Officer of the Devaswom was kept under suspension in a disciplinary matter pending further enquiry as evidenced by Ext.P1. Fourth respondent is appointed as the Enquiry Officer. But the 4th respondent could not proceed with the enquiry, since the 3rd respondent made a complaint before the 2nd respondent-Commissioner stating that the enquiry cannot be proceeded with, since there is already a criminal case pending against him. Ext.P9 is a petition made by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent granted an interim stay of all further proceedings with the demostic enquiry and the same is extended from time to time. -2- WP(C).No.16507/2008 Aggrieved by such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that the Appointing Authority, the Devaswom, has got every right to take disciplinary action against its employees and such a managerial function cannot be interfered with by the 2nd respondent. It is inter alia contended that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction as per the provisions of the H.R. & C.E.A. Act. Therefore, the crucial question is as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Appointing Authority could be interfered with by the Commissioner and if so under what power. Without deciding this question the 3rd respondent has extended the interim stay from time to time. In the factual situation and in the we are taking, it is not necessary to issue to the party respondents. 2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the facts and circumstances, we direct the 2nd respondent to finally decide the matter on the next posting date and pass orders thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner. If the question of jurisdiction having been raised by the petitioner, it shall be decided by the Commissioner in the first instance. It is open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions -3- WP(C).No.16507/2008 which are raised in this writ petition, before the 2nd respondent Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Issue emergent copy. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.