1. There are two petitioners in this Original Petition. They are Upper Division Clerks in the service of Guruvayoor Devaswom. In the Original Petition, they challenge Ext. P8 and pray for quashing the same. Ext. P8 is an order passed by the Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom on 3.3.2001. By this order, the petitioners have been suspended pending disciplinary proceedings. The facts in the Original Petition are as follows:

2. The first petitioner is the Secretary and the second petitioner is the President of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Association. According to the petitioners, it was a registered non-political Association of employees of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The case of the petitioners is that the Association is fighting against the various illegalities and corruptions committed in the Devaswom. It gives details of the attempt made by the Association to put everything in order when the Managing Committee of the Devaswom had deviated from its path. The petitioners referred to O.P. No. 2071 of 1993 with regard to "Govesala". According to the petitioners, whenever the Managing Committee was exercising its power illegally, the petitioner tried to prevent them from making anything illegally.

3. In para 7, the petitioners stated that the Devaswom had a Driver by name Ponnu. He was sent on deputation to the Kerala Pharmaceutical Corporation as per order of the Health Department dated 17.1.2001. After sending Ponnu on deputation, the Administrator of the Devaswom on 1.2.2001 issued an order appointing one K.Satheesan in the vacancy which arose on account of the deputation. The petitioners contend that virtually it was a non-existing vacancy, which was created by illegal means. There is no provision for sending a Devaswom employee on deputation to any other Government Department. Further, the Health Department has no authority for ordering deputation. When this fact became known, the Association complained before the Commissioner of Guruvayoor Devaswom and the Minister through representation, copy of which is produced and marked as Ext. P3 in the case. Ext. P3 according to the petitioners, has antagonised the first respondent.

4. The first respondent issued notice to the petitioners stating that the activities of the petitioners are against the Committee of the Devaswom and they are liable for disciplinary action. That notice is produced and marked as Ext. P4. On the next day, the petitioners submitted a reply stating that as there was reference to the Association in Ext. P4, some reasonable time may be given for submitting reply. Ext. P5 is the copy of the reply. On 19.2.2001, the first respondent sent another notice stating that time upto 26.2.2001 was granted for submitting records as mentioned in Ext. P5. Ext. P6 is the copy of the notice. On 26.2.2001, the petitioners submitted a reply, copy of which is produced and marked as Ext. P7. In Ext. P7, the petitioners wanted certain documents to be supplied to them. It is thereafter on 3.3.2001 that Ext. P8 order was issued suspending the petitioners from service. It is challenging Ext. P8 that this Original Petition is filed.

5. The petitioners challenge Ext. P8 stating that Ext. P8 order was issued with malafide and ulterior motives. It was issued without any authority. The petitioners had pointed out only the illegality when a person was deputed for which there was no authority. According to the petitioners, they being devotees of Lord Guruvayoorappan, they have every right to point out the illegalities and corruptions. One of the prayers in the Original Petition is for a mandamus to conduct an enquiry regarding the administration in the light of the allegations made in Ext. P3.

6. Along with the Original Petition, the petitioners filed C.M.P. No. 1301 of 2001 for staying the suspension order. This Court stayed all further proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry, till the disposal of the Original Petition.

7. Three counter affidavits were filed by the Guruvayoor Devasw