IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23153 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VENUGOPAL,ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM KARUNAGAPPALLI, RESIDING AT MANIMEL HOUSE,PELA,MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THE DEWASOM COMMISSIONER, THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL, SC FOR TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.23153 of 2010 (T) -------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order dated 02/07/2010 placing him under suspension. 2. Petitioner is an Assistant Commissioner of the 1st respondent Devaswom Board. By Ext.P6 order dated 02/07/2010, he has been placed under suspension on the allegation that he did not take any action for getting the rent of the shopping complex revised. It is also alleged that he did not take any action for recovery of the rent from the tenants, which allegedly caused heavy loss to the Board. A reading of Ext.P6 order shows that the same has been issued based on report dated 01/07/2010 submitted by the Finance and Accounts Officer, a copy of which is Ext.R2(a). In Ext.R2(a), apart from the allegation that the rent was not revised and recovered, it is also stated that the petitioner did not take any action in compliance with Exts.P9 & P11 orders. 3. The petitioner submits that the allegations are in respect WP(C) No.23153/2010 -2- of room Nos.1 to 3 of the Shopping Complex belonging to Oachira Devaswom within the Karunagappally Group. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P9 dated 10/08/2009, he authorised the Sub Group Officer to take follow up action in the matter. It is stated that the Sub Group Officer was in-charge of the Shopping Complex and authorisation was given to him on 14/08/2009. It is stated that based on the above, the Sub Group Officer submitted Ext.P10 report dated 01/10/2009, which was forwarded to the Devaswom Commissioner. 4. According to the petitioner, it was thereafter that the Devaswom Commissioner issued Ext.P11 dated 11/01/2010 requiring him to take action for recovery of the rent and for renewal of the lease arrangement and report compliance. The petitioner states that on receipt of Ext.P11, he directed the Sub Group Officer to take follow up action in the matter, and the Sub Group Officer thereupon submitted Ext.P12 report dated 17/04/2010 seeking clarification from the Legal Advisor. Based on Ext.P12, the petitioner states that he submitted Ext.P5 to the Devaswom Commissioner for obtaining clarification in the matter. It is stated WP(C) No.23153/2010 -3- that the Devaswom Commissioner without taking further action based on Ext.P5, placed him under suspension by Ext.P6 order dated 02/07/2010 on the allegation that he committed lapses in implementation of the earlier directions of the Board evidenced by Exts.P9 & P11. 5. According to the petitioner, the allegation that he did not take action on Exts.P9 & P11 is incorrect. It is also his case that the real reason for placing him under suspension is that when the Devaswom Commissioner issued Ext.P8 requiring the Principal of the Devaswom Board College to grant an out of turn admission to a student, though the petitioner forwarded Ext.P8 to the Principal for appropriate action, the Principal refused to comply with the same. 6. The petitioner also refers to Ext.P13 proceedings dated 08/07/2010 of the Devaswom Commissioner and submits that the Devaswom Commissioner after placing him under suspension has issued Ext.P13, in which further directions in pursuance to Ext.P5 report submitted by him have been issued. Therefore, the petitioner submits that not only the facts based on which he has been placed under suspension are incorrect, but also the WP(C) No.23153/2010 -4- suspension is vitiated for malafides. 7. The Devaswom Commissioner has filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to him, there has been serious lapses on the part of the petitioner. It is stated that there was dispute regarding the rent payable and the lease of the 3 shop rooms in the Shopping Complex belonging to the Devaswom Board. It is stated that the petitioner was asked to take steps for renewal of lease agreements and for revision of rent. Being the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner was issued orders dated 12/01/2009, 13/03/2009 & 08/06/2009 calling for report regarding the action taken by him. It is stated that the petitioner did not take any action thereon. 8. According to Commissioner, subsequently, he issued order dated 10/08/2009 authorising the petitioner to negotiate with the tenants for revising the rent and for collection of arrears of rent. It is stated that even on the said report, no action was taken. It is stated that thereafter, after a long delay, the petitioner submitted Ext.R2(d) dated 20/11/2009 enclosing letter of the occupants of the rooms in question reporting that after negotiations, they are WP(C) No.23153/2010 -5- agreeable to renew the agreement and for revision of rent. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.R2(d) and its enclosure, the Commissioner issued Ext.R2(e) dated 11/01/2010 directing the petitioner to take steps for renewal of the lease arrangement and to realise the arrears of rent also. It is stated that the petitioner did not take any action thereon, and on the other hand was sent two reports, as a result of which, there is rent arrears of more than Rs.1 lakhs from the tenants in question. 9. Thus the Devaswom Commissioner contends that there has been total inaction and dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner in realising the rent and renewing the lease agreement with the tenants. It is also stated that there has been insubordination on the part of the petitioner in as much as he did not comply with the directions issued by the Devaswom Commissioner. 10. As far as this writ petition is concerned, this Court is only to examine whether the Devaswom Commissioner was justified in placing the petitioner under suspension as per Ext.P6. If the disciplinary authority, on materials, is prima facie satisfied that a WP(C) No.23153/2010 -6- delinquent has committed certain commissions or omissions, which if proved are misconducts, the disciplinary authority is entitled to take appropriate action against the delinquent. If, for bonafide reasons, the disciplinary authority also considers that the delinquent shall not be allowed to discharge duties during the pendency of such proceedings, it is also open to the disciplinary authority to place the delinquent under suspension, and an order so issued will not be interfered by this Court, unless the delinquent is able to show that the allegations made against him, even if proved, are not misconducts or that the steps taken by the disciplinary authority are vitiated by malafides. 11. In this case, on considering the materials produced and the contentions raised by both sides, I am not persuaded to think that the action of the disciplinary authority is not based on any materials or that the same is vitiated by malafides. True, the petitioner has a case that it was for the reason that the Principal of the Devaswom Board College did not comply with Ext.P8, that he has been placed under suspension as per Ext.P6. However that allegation also has been denied by the Devaswom Commissioner in WP(C) No.23153/2010 -7- paragraph 19 of its counter affidavit. In the light of the dispute raised and for want of materials, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P6, on that ground either. 12. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner has been placed under suspension and as according to the Devaswom Commissioner memo of charges has been served on the petitioner, it is necessary that enquiry against the petitioner should be concluded on an expeditious basis, so that the uncertainty created in the career of the petitioner will be given a quietus. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reply to the memo of charges was submitted on 04/08/2010, and that he does not need any opportunity to peruse the documents. Taking note of the submissions made, it is directed that the Devaswom Commissioner shall conclude the enquiry against the petitioner within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, provided the petitioner co-operates for the same. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg