Back
2001 Supreme(Ker) 159
Judges : S.SANKARASUBBAN,A.LEKSHMIKUTTY
Sasikumar - Appellant
Versus
Travancore Devaswom Board - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 6683 of 2001
Decided On : 03/29/2001
Advocates Appeared :
Govind K. Bharathan & C.P. Kunjhikannan For Petitioner P.G. Parameswara Panicker & P. Gopal For Respondents
The main legal point established is that the suspension of an employee should be based on the gravity of alleged misconduct, and publication in a newspaper should be thoroughly examined before taking disciplinary action.
Headnote:
Suspension Order - Service Rules - [Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, S.35(2)(e)] - The court examined the suspension order issued to a watchman employed at a temple and found that the publication in a newspaper by the petitioner did not bring disrepute to the temple board. The court emphasized the need to consider the gravity of alleged misconduct before suspending an employee and quashed the suspension order, directing reinstatement and continuation of the enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a watchman at a temple, filed a representation regarding irregularities in the counting of notes in the temple's treasury. Subsequently, he received a suspension order based on a news item published in a newspaper, which he denied being responsible for.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the publication in the newspaper did not bring disrepute to the temple board and emphasized the need to consider the gravity of alleged misconduct before suspending an employee.
Issues: The main contention was the validity of the suspension order and whether the petitioner had committed misconduct by the publication in the newspaper.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspension of an employee should be based on the gravity of alleged misconduct and found that the publication did not bring disrepute to the temple board. It also considered the petitioner's role as a union secretary and a devotee of the temple in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court quashed the suspension order, directed the reinstatement of the petitioner, and ordered the continuation of the enquiry within six months.
S. Sankarasubban, J.
Petitioner in this Original Petition is employed as a Watchman at the Avanipuram Devaswom, Varkala Group, under the Travancore Devaswom Board. Petitioner has completed 19 years of service and there has not been any complaint against him so far. He is also the General Secretary of Devaswom Employees Union, which is apart of Devaswom Employees Front, which was formed by bringing under one banner the Devaswom Employees Union and seven other Unions and Associations. This coming together under one banner was insisted to because of the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 3821/90 in which it was laid down that Union activities were not conducive in Temples and their service in a temple not being like service in other branches. According to the petitioner, he being the Secretary of the Devaswom Employees Union, was informed by members of the Union who were on Bhandaram special duty that one bundle of 100 notes of Rs. 500/- totaling Rs. 50,000/- was missing. Then the petitioner filed a representation before the President of the Travancore Devaswom Board, copy of which is produced as Ext. P1. Thereafter,
petitioner received a letter of the Vigilance Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board dated 21.12.2000 asking him to appear before the Vigilance Officer to give evidence in the matter regarding the complaint about missing notes bundle in Sabarimala Bhandaram. That letter is produced as Ext. P2. Thereafter, the Devaswom Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 19.1.2001 to the petitioner, to show cause why action should not be taken against him. Petitioner submitted a reply to the Devaswom Commissioner, copy of which is produced as Ext. P4. In Ext. P3 show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner has caused a news item to be published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 24.12.2000 regarding the missing of the notes from the Bhandaram. It is stated that this is bringing down the reputation of the management and unnecessarily interfering with the work of the employees. Hence the petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him. Petitioner filed a reply, Ext. P4. In Ext. P4, petitioner admits that he gave a representation before the Devaswom Board. But he has stated that he has not given any publication in the newspaper. Hence, according to him, there is nothing to enquire because whatever he had informed the Board was in the interest of the Board. On 9.2.2001 petitioner received the suspension order which is signed by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The suspension order is produced as Ext. P5. The suspension order is issued on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer dated 30.12.2000. Pursuant to the order of suspension petitioner was relieved. It is challenging the suspension order, the Original Petition is filed.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that proper person to issue the suspension order is the Devaswom Commissioner. The Devaswom Board cannot issue the suspension order. Secondly, it is stated that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct. He has filed a representation before the Board of Directors, bringing to their notice certain irregularies that is being practised at the site of the Bhandaram. He has further stated that he has not brought to the notice of the newspaper regarding the news item. As a matter of fact, the Devaswom Board has not enquired whether the news item was published at the instance of the petitioner. Further the news item was not given by the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board. It admits the receipt of the representation by the petitioner. It is stated that the matter was enquired through the Vigilance Officer and it was found that there was no substance in the complaint. It further assumes that the publication in the newspaper was made on the request of the petitioner and that it affects the Travancore Devaswom Board considerably. It is further stated t
