Order Imposing Liability on Devaswom Officer for Missing Temple Articles Set Aside for Violating Natural Justice: Kerala High Court - 2025-03-05

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Quashes Order Holding Devaswom Officer Liable for Missing Temple Valuables, Cites Violation of Natural Justice

Decision Emphasizes Right to be Heard Before Imposing Liability

Ernakulam, Kerala – The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 5, 2025, set aside an order by the Cochin Devaswom Board that held a Devaswom Officer liable for missing articles from the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. The bench, comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. , found that the impugned order (Ext.P14) was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

The court has directed the Special Devaswom Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh, ensuring the petitioner and other concerned parties are given a fair hearing, and to issue a new decision within three months.

Case Background: Disputed Liability and Alleged Anomalies

The petitioner, Ajayakumar E.K., who took charge as the Devaswom Officer of Tripunithura Devaswom (under which Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple falls) on June 28, 2006, filed the writ petition [WP(C) NO. 25371 OF 2015] challenging several orders of the Cochin Devaswom Board. These orders sought to fix liability on him for missing temple articles, including a share of Rs. 28,650/- as per Ext.P14 dated December 26, 2014.

Mr. Ajayakumar contended that upon assuming his duties, he immediately noticed and reported (vide Ext.P1 dated 31.07.2006) several anomalies in the Pandam Pathram Register ( P.P. Register – for valuables) and Major Eradavu Register (M.E. Register). He argued that these discrepancies and losses occurred before he took charge and that the official handover of these items and registers was incomplete or flawed. He also pointed out that an order (Ext.P2) by the Devaswom Board itself in 2006 to inspect these reported anomalies was never acted upon.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: * Liability was being fixed for articles lost prior to his tenure (commenced June 28, 2006). * He had promptly reported anomalies in temple registers ( P.P. Register and M.E. Register) to the Devaswom Assistant Commissioner (Ext.P1). * The charge of the specific items was never properly handed over to him, as evidenced by entries in the registers (Ext.P9(a), Ext.P16). For instance, the key of the Kallara Bhandaram (strong room) was last noted as handed over on 31.10.2002, before his time. * The crucial order, Ext.P14, fixing joint liability of Rs.28,650/- on him and three other custodians (Assistant Commissioner, Moothathu, and Menokki ), was passed without giving him a personal hearing or considering his detailed explanations (Ext.P9, Ext.P13, Ext.P15). * He was allegedly compelled to deposit Rs.33,884.85 earlier (Ext.P5 series receipts) to rectify register anomalies.

Cochin Devaswom Board's Defense: * As the Devaswom Officer, the petitioner could not evade responsibility for articles under his statutory custody. * If the charge was not properly handed over, the petitioner should have refused to take charge of the registers. * The Board contended that the orders, including Ext.P14, were issued after considering the petitioner's explanations (a point the Court ultimately disagreed with regarding the hearing for Ext.P14). * The Devaswom Manual (Articles 137, 138) outlines procedures for managing ' Nadavaravu ' (offerings) articles, implying a system of accountability.

Court's Reasoning: The Imperative of Natural Justice

The High Court meticulously examined the records and arguments. The pivotal finding revolved around the procedure adopted in issuing Ext.P14. The judgment stated:

"While going through Exts. P7 and P14 orders of the 2nd respondent we notice that those orders were passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his contentions before the 2nd respondent."

The court further solidified this in its conclusion:

"Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and submissions made at the Bar, we are of the view that Ext.P14 order of the 2nd respondent finding the petitioner and other three custodians of the valuables as responsible for the missing items worth Rs.28,650/- is liable to be set aside, since the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner and others."

The court also took note of a previous judgment in W.P.(C) No. 2978 of 2013 involving an Assistant Commissioner (one of the joint custodians in this matter), where a similar issue of liability for missing valuables led to a direction for a detailed enquiry after dues were partially withheld.

Final Verdict and Directives

The Kerala High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following key directions:

1. Ext.P14 Annulled: The order dated December 26, 2014 (Ext.P14), issued by the Special Devaswom Commissioner, fixing liability on the petitioner and others, is set aside.

2. Fresh Adjudication: The Special Devaswom Commissioner (2nd respondent) is directed to decide the matter afresh.

3. Opportunity to be Heard: This fresh decision must be made after providing a comprehensive opportunity for the petitioner and other affected parties to present their contentions on merit.

4. Timeline: The re-adjudication process must be completed expeditiously, within three months from the receipt of the judgment copy.

5. New Representation Allowed: The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation detailing his defense to the Special Devaswom Commissioner.

6. Conditional Deposit: Any deposit made by the petitioner pursuant to interim court orders will be subject to the outcome of the fresh decision by the Devaswom Board.

This judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), reinforcing that administrative bodies, even in matters of financial liability of employees, must adhere to due process and natural justice. It provides an opportunity for a thorough re-examination of the facts surrounding the alleged loss of temple valuables and the petitioner's responsibility, if any.