IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33887 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SREE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA TEMPLE, THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, NAVEEN KUMAR BHAGATH, S/O.BALACHANDRA BHAGATH, AGED 32, "CHAITHRA", KAVUMBHAGOM, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT (ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE). 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, H.R.& C.E. (ADMN), DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER H.R.& C.E. (ADMN) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. 3. B.GOPALAKRISHNA KRISHNA BHAT, S/O.B.SADASIVA BHAT, "SURABHI", CHETTAMCOON HOUSING COLONY, THALASSERY. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 14.10.1991 EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 19.11.1992 EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 28.1.1993 EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 20.9.2002 EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28.1.2003 EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.6.2006 EXT.P8 PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 17.6.2006 EXT.P9 PHOTOCOPY OF TERMINATION ORDER. EXT.P10 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 29.11.2006 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN AP NO. 2 OF 2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 33887 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised is whether the petitioner's temple is governed by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The dispute arises in the context of order passed by the Commissioner, second respondent, to reinstate the third respondent to the service of the petitioner as Poojari in the temple. We do not think the question raised need to be decided in this case because admittedly third respondent was sacked without any enquiry. If third respondent is found to be unfit to work as Shanthi then nothing stops the management in terminating his services. However, fairness requires an enquiry to be conducted giving opportunity to the third respondent to dispute the allegations. W.P. is accordingly closed vacating Ext.P10 order passed by the Commissioner, but with direction to the petitioner to hold an enquiry in the matter by appointing suitable enquiry officer familiar with rituals in 2 the temple, give statement of allegations to third respondent, and give an opportunity to him to file explanation to the same, adduce evidence before the Enquiry Officer, so that the Enquiry Officer will complete the enquiry and file report without any delay. Petitioner is directed to pass orders after enquiry at the earliest and in any case within a period of two months from now. If allegations are minor in nature and if third respondent apologises for the mistakes and agrees to correct himself, nothing stops the petitioner from taking him with or without conditions. If third respondent is removed from service on enquiry, he shall surrender the quarters allotted to him in that capacity. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V. K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3