IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27549 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1 ---------------- M. SANTHOSH KUMAR, MELSANTHI, ACHANKOVIL DEVASWOM, PUNALUR GROUP, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE, DEVASWOM BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER (GENERAL ADMINISTRATION), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PUNALUR GROUP, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 4. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM OFFICE, ACHANKOVIL, KOLLAM DIST. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1TO4 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1TO4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27549 OF 2009 (K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Melsanthi of Achankovil Temple within the Punalur group. 2. On 22.8.2009, a relative of the petitioner expired and to attend the funeral rites, petitioner left the Temple. Thereafter, he reported back at the temple on 25.8.2009 and resumed duties by performing Pujas. It is stated that, on the ground that, the petitioner did not observe `Pula' for 11 days and that he resumed duties within 3 days of the death of his relative, he was issued Ext.P2 notice. Petitioner's case is that on its receipt he submitted Ext.P3 enclosing Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Thanthri, whose advise is stated to have been obtained by the Devaswom Board also. According to the Devaswom Board he was absented from duty on 26.8.2009 to 29.8.2009 which is a disputed issue. Finally based on Ext.R4(b) report, Commissioner issued Ext.P6 directing the Assistant Commissioner to post the petitioner elsewhere and the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry into the allegations against the petitoner. It was at that stage the writ WPC.No. 27549/09 :2 : petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 and P6. 3. At the stage of admission, by order dated 12.10.2009 this court directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to continue at Achankovil and the petitioner is continuing in that temple. The Devaswom Board has brought up the matter for orders pointing out that in view of the pendency of the writ petition with the interim order, they are not in a position to proceed further with Ext.P6. 4. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. In any case, since there are certain allegations raised against the petitioner and he has also put up his defence the matter needs to be enquired into and finalised. By Ext.P6 the Deputy Commissioner was directed to enquire into the allegations against petitioner and therefore proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 has to be initiated and taken to its logical conclusion. Since the proceedings initiated are within the competence of the Board, this court cannot interfere with such proceedings. Therefore the Board is at liberty to complete the proceedings which the Board initiated pursuant to Ext.P6. This the Deputy Commissioner shall expedite WPC.No. 27549/09 :3 : and complete as expeditiously as possible, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 6. Having regard to the fact that pursuant ot the order dated 12.10.2009, petitioner is continuing at Achankovil Temple, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue at Ahankovil temple as before. However, on the conclusion of the proceedings it will be open to the Board to take appropriate decision regarding the petitioner's continuance at the present station. 7. Counsel for the petitioner points out that since the issuance of Ext.P2, the petitioner is not paid salary. Since he is performing duties as Melsanthi he is entitled to be paid his wages and the respondents 3 and 4 shall pay the salary due to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 27549/09 :4 :