IMPORTANT POINTS
The charge sheet must be precise and must contain a statement of imputations constituting the foundation of misconduct is a basic principle of natural justice. Natural justice in a disciplinary enquiry must mean that the employee must have notice of the charges, first and foremost. This is a fundamental stipulation the noncompliance of which would vitiate the enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith treating his suspension period as service without any break and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to conduct a full-fledged enquiry in respect of the allegations raised.

2. The petitioner joined service under the Zamorin Central Devaswom in 1990. He was appointed as Administrative Officer of Zamorin Central Devaswom in 2007. While working so, on 26.12.2017, the Bandarams of Alathiyur Perumthrikkovil, Tirur Taluk were opened and counted under the supervision of the 4th respondent-Devaswom Inspector. The Central Devaswom Office soon thereafter received a complaint alleging misappropriation of the currency subjected to counting. The complaints were received along with two CDs through post. The petitioner being Administrative Officer, perused the complaint. Taking into account the gravity of the allegations involved, the petitioner forwarded the complaint to the 1st respondent-Trustee of the Devaswom along with a note.

3. The petitioner states that he has done so bona fide for facilitating the Trustee to take appropriate decision in the matter. But, to the surprise of the petitioner, he was issued with Ext.P1 show-cause notice dated 28.03.2018 from the 1st respondent alleging that by forwarding the complaint along with a note, the petitioner acted with prejudice and haste. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation dated 02.04.2018. By Ext.P3 letter dated 03.04.2018, the petitioner was informed that his explanation is not satisfactory. Ext.P3 required the petitioner to appear before a Committee. The petitioner appeared before the Committee. Subsequently, Ext.P4 show-cause notice dated 17.09.2018 was served on the petitioner stating that the Committee has found that the petitioner is guilty of concocting false allegation and complaint against the 4th respondent. The petitioner denied the allegation and submitted Ext.P5 explanation dated 22.09.2018. However, as per Ext.P6 order dated 29.09.2018, the petitioner was suspended pending domestic enquiry. An Advocate was appointed as enquiry officer on 10.10.2018. Ext.P9 charge memo dated 07.01.2019 was served on the petitioner.

4. The petitioner contended that the entire proceedings narrated above have been initiated by the 1st respondent-Trustee to protect the 4th respondent and it is not in the best of interest of the Devaswom. Ext.P9 charge memo is not in specific terms. The allegations of misconduct lack clarity. No statement of allegations are enclosed with the charge memo. As the enquiry was not being proceeded with, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 14.01.2019 before the 3rd respondent - Commissioner requesting to cancel the charge memo and reinstate him in service. Ext.P10 did not yield any result.

5. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that the Malabar Devaswom Board has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal administration of the temple. Power to appoint employees and initiate disciplinary proceedings, is vested with the Trustee. A complaint addressed to the 1st respondent was received by the petitioner. In the complaint, it was stated that while Bandarams were opened and counted on 26.12.2017, the 4th respondent committed theft. It was also stated that in spite of knowledge, the Executive Officer of the temple did not promptly act. When the 1st respondent received the complaint, he called for a report from the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer and 25 employees gave a statement in writing revealing that they have not preferred any such complaint and that the contents of the complaint are false.

6. Still, an explanation was called for from the 4th respondent and the Executive Officer of the temple. The 4th respondent was removed from duty of counting of Bandarams. The counting was done by temple employees under strict supervision of an Inspector appointed by the Malabar Deva