IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13264 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PRAVEENKUMAR, S/O.VENUGOPALA SHARMA, AGED 36 YEARS, TEMPLE PRIEST, SREE PARASURAMA TEMPLE, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM OFFICE, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THIRUVALLAM DEVASWOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SAJITH KUMAR, VASANTHOM, CONVENT ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA. BY SC SRI.O.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13264/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of suspension passed by the Commissioner pending enquiry. The essential allegation levelled against the petitioner by one Sajith Kumar is that when the complainant had come to Thiruvallom Temple for performing the last rites relating to his grandfather, petitioner, who was the main priest there, had apparently demanded and received an amount of Rs.1,000/-, but had ultimately declined to perform any services for the petitioner. After issuance of show cause and reply by the petitioner, Commissioner proceeded to direct an enquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner. In the meanwhile Ext.P9 order of suspension was passed. 2. A copy of the report of enquiry conducted by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner has now been produced before me as Ext.P12. Obviously it is upto the Commissioner to take a decision on the same. But a perusal of Ext.P12 shows that the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the W.P.(C).13264/2008 2 allegation levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. Unless there are other circumstances justifying a deviation from the finding of fact given by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner, there is no reason why the petitioner should continue to be kept under suspension. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to pass orders on the acceptability of Ext.P12 report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the Commissioner finds any reason for not accepting Ext.P12 report, then the petitioner shall be put on notice regarding any such proposal on the part of the Commissioner and he shall be heard before a decision is taken. Final orders as regards the acceptability of Ext.P12, which of course, will take in the necessity to continue the petitioner under suspension, shall be passed at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs