IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 DBP.No. 74 of 2010() ---------------------------- (IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD- THEFT OF BHANDARAM COLLECTION IN TEMPLE-CDB-REPORT NO.147/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE OMBUDSMAN- SUO-MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED -REG:- ................ COMPLAINANT (S): ------------------------------- SRI.P.G.KRISHNAKUMAR, PULICKAL HOUSE, B.K.PURAM P.O., PUTHENCRUZ(VIZ) ERNAKULAM 0682 308. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAGHUNANDANA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, COCHIN DEVASWOM AUDIT, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC FOR CDB R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE (OMBUDSMAN) THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = D.B.P.No.74 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011. Order Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.If the facts in this case are written out as a fairly tale, it should shudder even the young children out of their sleep. We have before us a person who was the Sambandhi of a temple. He continues to hold that post. The Devaswom Board alleged that while he was the Sambandhi of the temple at an earlier point of time, the hundi collections depleted and the locks of the hundies were found tampered with. It was, for all intents and purposes, found that it was the said Sambandhi who was instrumental for misappropriating the hundi collections. He was, therefore, transferred out of the temple. Later, he applied for being brought back. Initially, that was refused. He was placed under suspension DBP74/10 -: 2 :- and the Vigilance Officer was required to look into the matter. We are told that CDB appoints persons as Vigilance Officers from time to time from among retired police personnel of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Yet, in the case in hand, the Vigilance Officer, a retired Dy.S.P., with no authority to investigate any crime, was searching for evidence, including through witnesses in connection with the alleged theft. He concluded that there is no evidence to prove the allegation against the Sambandhi beyond shadow of doubt. He, hence, recommended that the Sambandhi be brought back and the period of suspension be treated as period spent on duty. Armed with such a situation, the Sambandhi went to the learned Ombudsman seeking a remedy of a direction to the CDB to disburse arrears of salary. 2.The learned Ombudsman, quite rightly, came to the conclusion that the whole exercise by the Vigilance Officer was not only away from the DBP74/10 -: 3 :- materials on record, but also without jurisdiction, in as much as, the Vigilance Officer of the Board cannot even register a crime if the person, who has allegedly committed the illegal acts, is an offender on the face of the criminal laws. The learned Ombudsman, therefore, refused to issue any order in favour of the Sambandhi, but has placed before us a report indicating that the CDB should come out with guidelines for its guidance and there should be some general directions in this regard. 3.In so far as the Sambandhi P.G.Krishnakumar is concerned, we do not find any ground for exercise of writ jurisdiction or for exercise of any authority referable to the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act to direct the CDB to grant Krishnakumar the monetary benefits that he now asks for. 4.But, in so far as the other, but more important, DBP74/10 -: 4 :- issues are concerned, the Secretary of CDB has now placed an affidavit candidly disclosing total administrative inefficiency in connection with the management of the complaint against Krishnakumar, however pointing out that by now, CDB is better informed and is in the process of formulating guidelines for appropriate and better management of its affairs in the relevant matter. 5.The CDB has to frame clear and categoric guidelines regarding sealing and management of hundies and also fixing of responsibilities in relation to hundies in each and every temple. There has to be a specific custodian of the hundies in relation to each and every temple and the responsibility is to be fixed in such a manner that there cannot be any dilatory tactics in reaching at the wrongdoer. 6.There has to be clear guidelines as to prompt reporting to the police officials, of any tampering of the hundies. It is not for the DBP74/10 -: 5 :- Devaswom authorities to decide as to whether a case of manipulation of hundi locks is to be reported to the police or not. It is not for the Devaswom to protect any person who commits illegal acts in connection with the temple properties, be it immovable properties or movable properties, including hundies, as also the safety of the idols etc. Therefore, any incident of trespass, theft or whatever it may be in connection with the temple, shall be immediately reported to the jurisdictional police, without fail. This shall also form part of the guidelines. 7.It is also not out of place to indicate that Vigilance Officers have to know the clear distinction between the quality of appreciation for issues in connection with service law, including service discipline and matters that will have to be looked into as regards the criminal cases. Therefore, even a trained investigator when dealing with a service matter DBP74/10 -: 6 :- and considering the question of indiscipline, cannot always search for proof beyond doubt and has to learn to apply the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities in relation to disciplinary matters. We mention this for the purpose of the Board to get appropriate advice from competent people and formulate guidelines touching all the aforesaid matters. 8.Separate guidelines in relation to different relevant matters will be formulated and placed before the learned Ombudsman within a period of three months from now, without fail. The learned Ombudsman will take stock of such draft guidelines and issue any advice as may be found necessary so that the CDB can further mould its existing guidelines and place for further approval of the learned Ombudsman. Guidelines shall be finalised as may be advised by the learned Ombudsman and issued promptly and such issuance shall be reported to the learned Ombudsman. The follow up action taken on the DBP74/10 -: 7 :- basis of the report of the learned Ombudsman shall be reflected in the appropriate annual report. The DBP ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/0906