IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 24906 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- PAYYANUR SREE SUBRAHMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES: 1.T.M. KUNHIPARAMESWARN THIRUMUNPU, S/O. NARAYANAN, THIRUMUNPU, AGED 76 YEARS. 2. K.M. RADHAKRISHNAN THIRUMUNPU, S/O. KESAVAN THIRUMUNPU, AGED 76 YEARS 3. K.GIRISHAN THIRUMUNPU, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN THIRUMUNPU, AGED 50 YEARS. 4. R.M. SANKARA NARAYANAN THIRUMUNPU, S/O. KUNHI PARAMESWARAN THIRUMUNPU, AGED 40 YEARS. 5. A.K. RAJEEVAN PODUVAL, S/O. LATE V.M. KUNHIKKAMMARA PODUVAL, AGED 50 YEARS. 6. K.A. MOHANAN PODUVAL, S/O. KUNHIRAMA PODUVAL, AGED 50 YEARS. 7. V.P. SUMITHRAN PODUVAL, S/O. NARAYANA PODUVAL, AGED 42 YEARS. 8. PURACHERI MOHANAN PODUVAL, S/O. SEKHARA PODUVAL, AGED 55 YEARS. 9. T.K. NARAYANAN PODUVAL, S/O. CHINDA PODUVAL, AGED 57 YEARS 10. KURUNTHIL RAMACHANDRAN PODUVAL, S/O. CHINDA PODUVAL, AGED 56 YEARS. 11. EDAVALATH RAJAN PODUVAL, S/O. KANNAN, AGED 58 YEARS. 12. PARANTHATTA MADHAVAN PODUVAL, S/O. CHINDA PODUVAL, AGED 58 YEARS. 13. V.T. V.RAGHAVAN PODUVAL, S/O. RAMA PODUVAL, AGED 57 YEARS. 14. THEPPATH KARIPPATH NARAYANAN PODUVAL, S/O. KUNHIRAMA PODUVAL, AGED 57 YEARS. WP(C).No. 24906 of 2008(M) :2: 15. KALIYANTHIL KELAN RAJENDRAN PODUVAL, S/O. NARAYANA PODUVAL, AGED 44 YEARS. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PAYYANUR SREE SUBRAHMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, MAHADEVAGRAMAM, P.O. PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS. ---------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E. (ADMN) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE - 20. 2. K.V. RAJAN, S/O. KRISHNAN MOOTHA PODUVAL AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHADEVAGRMAM, P.O. PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PAYYANUR SREE SUBRAHMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, MAHADEVAGRAMAM, P.O. PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24906 of 2008(M) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF NORTH MALABAR AS PER ITS ORDER DATED 27.7.1950 AND MADE IN O.S.53 OF 1948 P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.1.2008 FILED BY THE SAID HARIDASAN TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.3.2008 OF THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E. (ADMN) KOZHIKODE. P4 : COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 26.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE MEMO DATED 20.5.2008 WAS ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 3.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. P7 : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DATED 13.7.2008. P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 14.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ABOVE M.V.RAJAN ON ACCEPTING CHARGE OF THE VAZHIPADU COUNTER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE I.A.27/2008. P11 : COPY OF THE SAID EXPARTE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.7.2008 IN I.A.27/2008. P12 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.7.2008 ISSUED IN A.P.9/2008 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P13 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.7.2008 ISSUED IN I.A.28/2008 IN A.P.9/2008 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P14 : COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.28/2008 IN A.P. 9/2008. P15 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN A.P.9/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R2(A) : COPY OF COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DATED 22.7.2008. R2(B) : COPY OF I.A. DATED 23.7.2008. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. app/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 24906 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of June 2009. JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. 2. The petitioners are the trustees of the Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple. They placed the second respondent under suspension pending enquiry and on the basis of the said decision, the Executive Officer of the temple issued Ext.P8 order on 14.07.2008. The second respondent thereupon filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. By Ext. P11 order passed on 18.07.2008 the Deputy Commissioner stayed the operation of Ext. P8 order of suspension. The second respondent again moved the Deputy Commissioner for an order directing the Executive Officer of the temple to implement the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. On that application, the Deputy Commissioner passed Ext.P15 order directing the Executive Officer to comply with the order of stay earlier passed by him. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge Ext. P11 and Ext.P15. W.P.(C). No. 24906 OF 2008 2 3. The petitioners contend that no appeal lies from Ext. P8 to the Deputy Commissioner and therefore Exts. P11 and P15 are orders passed without jurisdiction. When the writ petition came up for hearing before me on 02.09.2008, I passed a detailed interim order holding that prima facie the orders impugned in this writ petition are orders passed without jurisdiction. I accordingly stayed the operation of Exts. P11 and P15 orders. Though the second respondent filed W.A.No. 2030 of 2008 against the interim order passed by me, the Division Bench of this Court did not interfere with the interim order. The Division Bench however directed that the second respondent can move for early disposal of the writ petition. 4. The pleadings disclose that the second respondent was placed under suspension on 14.07.2008 pending enquiry into the allegations against him. The pleadings disclose that a memo of charges has already been served and an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. In my opinion since nearly one year has passed after the order of suspension was passed, the enquiry should be expedited and final orders in the disciplinary action initiated against the second respondent passed expeditiously. W.P.(C). No. 24906 OF 2008 3 Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the Enquiry Officer has been appointed the petitioners will finalize the disciplinary action at the earliest, if the second respondent will co-operate with the enquiry. Sri M.Ramesh Chander, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent will co-operate with the enquiry and help the disciplinary authority to finalize the disciplinary proceedings at the earliest. In the light of the submissions made at the Bar and having regard to the fact that second petitioner has been under suspension since 14.07.2008, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- The petitioners shall finalize the disciplinary action initiated against the second respondent within two months from today after following the prescribed procedure. The second respondent shall co-operate with the enquiry and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments in which event it will be open to the petitioners to move this Court seeking enlargement of the time for completion of the enquiry. If the enquiry is not completed within the period of two months for no fault of the second W.P.(C). No. 24906 OF 2008 4 respondent, the second respondent shall be reinstated in service without prejudice to the continuance of the disciplinary action, on the expiry of the period of two months from today. In view of the directions issued by this Court, I also direct that the appeal filed by the second respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, on which Exts. P11 and P15 orders were passed shall stand struck off. The petitioners shall pay to the second respondent subsistence allowances at the applicable rate, if the same has not been paid till date. Arrears if any shall be paid within one month from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE kkms/