IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24808 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.DEVADASAN,EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE VAIRAMCODE BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, THIRUNAVAYA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE(DEVASWOM)DEPARTMENT, 2. THE COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,ERANHIPALAM.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673 006. ADDL.R3. SHRI.C.C.DINESH, INSPECTOR, MALABAR DEVASWQOM BOARD, MANJERI DIVISION, MALAPPURAM DT. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.11144/2010 DT 12/8/2010) ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24808 OF 2010 (A) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the Executive Officer of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathy Devaswom at Thirunavaya a s also of two other temples coming under the 2nd respondent. 2. It is stated that, while so, by Ext.P1 order dated 23/7/2010, on certain allegations of misconduct, he was placed under suspension. Against Ext.P1, petitioner filed Ext.P2 revision before the 1st respondent along with Ext.P3 application for interim stay. The Government considered the prayer of the petitioner to stay Ext.P1 order, and passed Ext.P4 order directing to keep Ext.P1 order of suspension in abeyance. 3. It is stated that revision was posted for hearing to 3/8/2010 and Ext.P5 notice was issued to the parties. It would appear that the counsel appearing for the petitioner was sick, and therefore, she filed Ext.P6 application for an adjournment producing the outpatient ticket of the hospital and Medical Certificate. By Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the Government on 4/8/2010, though the case was adjourned to 3/9/2010, the order WPC No. 24808/10 :2 : directing to keep Ext.P1 in abeyance was vacated. It is aggrieved by Ext.P7 to the extend interim order is vacated, the writ petition is filed. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it was only because the counsel appearing for the petitioner was unwell that she had to file Ext.P6 application for an adjournment producing medical certificate. It is stated that the Government having allowed the request for adjournment ought not have vacated the interim order and that too without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his counsel. 5. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, who has also filed a statement was heard. According to the learned standing counsel, the gravity of the miscondcuts alleged against the petitioner highlighted in Ext.P1 order and reiterated in the statement, itself showed that the interim order directing that Ext.P1 be kept in abeyance was not justified on facts. It is stated that, therefore the Government was perfectly justified in vacating the interim order against the implementation of Ext.P1. It is also stated that following the issuance of Ext.P7 order vacating the interim order, an Inspector posted in the office of the 2nd WPC No. 24808/10 :3 : respondent has already assumed charge as the Executive Officer in the Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathy Devaswom. 6. Admittedly, the Government entertained Ext.P2 revision filed by the petitioner along with Ext.P3 stay petition and passed order directing that Ext.P1 order of suspension be kept in abeyance. Although, it is true that when the Government issued notice of hearing, the petitioner should have argued the matter, fact remains that the petitioner could not appear for hearing only for the reason that his counsel was unwell. The fact that his counsel was unwell is stated in Ext.P6 application for adjournment filed by the counsel producing the medical certificates and OP tickets. In such circumstances, in my view, the Government should have acted with more fairness by granting an adjournment and should not have straight away vacated the interim order that was passed. 7. Having regard to the fact that the Government have acted contrary thereto, and vacated the interim order, I am inclined to think that Ext.P7 order to the extent the interim order passed on Ext.P3 is vacated, is illegal. 8. Therefore, I quash Ext.P7 to the extend it vacates the WPC No. 24808/10 :4 : interim order to keep in abeyance further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1. 1st respondent is therefore directed to issue notice to the petitioner, hear him or his counsel and pass fresh orders in the matter. 9. Since the additional 3rd respondent has already taken charge as the Executive Officer of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathy Devaswom at Thirunavaya, it is directed that his continuance as Executive Officer will depend upon the outcome of the order to be passed by the Government as directed herein above. It is also made clear that the continuance of the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer of Sree Vairamcode Bhagavathy Devaswom will not in any manner affect the petitioner's right to draw salary as before. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp