IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31069 of 2010(G) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- N.K.NARAYANAN MABOOTHIRI, (RETD.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER), GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM BOARD, MYLAKODATH MANA, CHOWANNUR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SRI. SURESH SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. GURUVAYORR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR - 680 001. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------- W.P.(C) No.31069 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Executive Engineer working in the Guruvayoor Devaswom. In 1990 in the 'Seevelipura' of the Guruvayoor Temple was renovated using teak wood purchased from the Forest Department. That work was completed in 2002. But certain allegations were raised by the Guruvayoor Prathikaranavedi regarding irregularities in the said work. The first respondent ordered a vigilance enquiry which resulted in Exts.P1 and P2 reports based on which the second respondent ordered recovery of an amount of Rs.1,36,334.80/- by Ext.P4 order from the petitioner. Petitioner is challenging that order. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the very same order which is a common order in respect of other employees also, has been quashed by this Court by Ext.P5 judgment. The learned single Judge had held thus in Ext P5:-” “3. A reading of Ext.P5 show cause notice and the explanations submitted by the petitioners show that against the allegations contained therein, the petitioners have raised several objection and in Ext.P1, none of these objections have been dealt with. Therefore, Exts.P1 orders directing the petitioners to remit the amount mentioned therein have been issued without any application of mind and for that reason, these orders deserve to be set aside and I do so. 4. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent W.P.(C) No.31069 OF 2010 2 Devaswom to pass fresh orders on the show cause notice duly adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioners. This shall be done with notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of hearing as well.” Following the said judgment, Ext.P4 is quashed in respect of petitioner also directing reconsideration of the matter by the Managing Committee of the second respondent adverting to contentions raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice, which shall be done with notice, to the petitioner and affording an opportunity of being heard to him. Till orders are thus passed liability is fixed, the liability shall not be recovered and the petitioner shall be continued to be paid salary. The writ Petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. mns