IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10716 of 2006(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- K.V.LAKSHMANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 58, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, CHUNDA, KANNAPURAM, MOTTAMMEL POST, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 331. BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT : --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE (ADMN), DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE MANAGER, NADUVIL MADHOM DEVASWOM, THIRUVALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678 551. R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SRI.ANTONY.MUKKATH R2 SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM R3 & 4 SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON 02/09/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10716 of 2006(A) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS. EXT.P1. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ORDER REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MANAGER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE MEMO A3/05 DATED 22.07.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 21.09.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.07.2005. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.11.2005 SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE EXPLAANATION DATED 20.02.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PEITIONER. EXT.P6(A) COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 22.2.2006. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : EXT.R4 (a). TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.4.2004. VK S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.10716 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Clerk cum Karyasthan in the Prayangod Siva Temple of which the third respondent is the Manager. The third respondent issued Ext.P3 memo of charges on certain allegations of misconduct. The petitioner submitted an explanation. Subsequently, by Ext.P5, a domestic enquiry was ordered by the third respondent into the allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the said orders on the ground that the third respondent does not have jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in so far as he is only an Executive Officer and there is a hereditary trustee for the temple. 2. The additional fourth respondent, who is the trustee of the temple, has filed a counter affidavit producing along with the same Ext.R4(a) order of appointment by which the petitioner was appointed by the third respondent contending that therefore the W.P.(c)No.10716/2006 2 third respondent is the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. Counter affidavit of the second respondent also takes the very same contention. 3. I have heard the parties. In so far as the petitioner was appointed by the third respondent himself, the petitioner cannot now take a contention that the third respondent is not the appointing authority and consequently the disciplinary authority. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.10716/2006 3 W.P.(c)No.10716/2006 4