WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 and connected cases: P. Girish Kumar Vs Cochin Devaswom Board; Sivanandan A. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board; P.M. Murali Vs Cochin Devaswom Board; T.S. Ambedkar Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **P. GIRISH KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, VADAPURATH HOUSE, PERUMPALLI P.O., ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS. SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA SMT.DIVYA S KUMAR SRI.BALU TOM SRI.BONNY BENNY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ROUND NORTH, TRICHUR-680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAJEEV, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SRI. K.P SUDHEER, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).2342/2018, WP(C).2503/2018, WP(C).38496/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 2342 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SIVANANDAN A. AGED 52, S/O.KUMARA MENON, AMMAPPILLY HOUSE, CHERUVALOOR, KORATTY, THRISSUR-680308.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BUILDING, THRISSUR-68001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 THE SECRETARY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, THRISSUR-680001.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAJEEV, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SRI. K.P SUDHEER, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).1538/2018, WP(C).2503/2018, WP(C).38496/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **3** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 2503 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **P.M.MURALI AGED 51 YEARS S/O MALLU PANAPARAMBIL HOUSE ANNAMANADA P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 741** **BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BUILDING, THRISSUR -680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2 THE SECRETARY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING,THRISSUR-680001.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAJEEV, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SRI. K.P SUDHEER, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).1538/2018, WP(C).2342/2018, WP(C).38496/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **4** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 38496 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **T.S.AMBEDKAR AGED 43 YEARS "MAASAPPIDI" (FORMER), ANNAMANADA DEVASWOM, S/O. SINKARAN, 'THEVERPADATH VEEDU', AVITTAPPILLIL DESOM, P.O.MATTATHUR, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SMT.A.SIMI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THIRUVANJIKKULAM GROUP, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR. 3 THE VIGILANCE OFFICER (ENQUIRY OFFICER) COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR - 680 001. 4 THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR - 680 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **T.K. SAJEEV KUMAR SC COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD SRI. K.P SUDHEER, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).1538/2018, WP(C).2503/2018, WP(C).2342/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **5** ## **JUDGMENT** These writ petitions are filed challenging orders issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board in pursuance of directions issued by this Court to consider the question of reinstatement of the petitioners, taking note of their aquittal by the Magistrate's Court in the criminal cases instituted against them. 2. Heard Sri.K.A.Sanjeetha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1538 of 2018, Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.2342 and 2503 of 2018 and Sri.A.Ranjith Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38496 of 2017 3. The petitioners, who are employees of the Cochin Devaswom Board had been issued with memo of charges, alleging their involvement in an incident which occurred on 29.10.2008. It is stated that the petitioners were involved in the theft of money from the 'Bhandaram' kept in front of Sreekrishna Temple, **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES 6** which is in the 'Upapradishta' of the Astamichira Devaswom. The petitioners were served with a memo of charges and an order of suspension was issued on 31.10.2008. Disciplinary proceedings were also conducted as against the petitioners. Though the petitioners had challenged the order of suspension, this court had directed a consideration of the representations preferred for revocation of the order of suspension. 4. It is stated that on the very same allegations as contained in the memo of charges, an FIR was registered as against the petitioners. The case was charged against all the petitioners. While the trial of the case was pending before the Criminal Court, the disciplinary proceeding had been finalized against the petitioners and the petitioners had been removed from service by proceedings dated 19.2.2011. It is stated that by judgment in Criminal Case No.551/2009 dated 30.4.2013, the petitioners were honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court. The petitioners had approached this Court preferring writ petitions seeking **7** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** reinstatement in service on the strength of their acquittal in the Criminal Case. One such writ petition, W.P.(C) No.9538 of 2014, was disposed of by judgment dated 25.4.2014 directing a reconsideration of the matter by the Board. By judgment dated 28.2.2017 in W.P.(C) Nos. 15521 and 16565 of 2011 and 30549 of 2013 this Court directed the Secretary of the Board to consider the claim of the petitioners that they are libile be reinstated in service on account of their acquittal by the Magistrate's Court in the Criminal Cases instituted against them. 5. It appears that order dated 12.10.2017 has been passed in purported compliance of the said directions. However, the specific relief sought for by the petitioners for considering their claim for reinstatement on the basis of the judgment of the Criminal Court acquitting them was not considered by the Board. On the other hand, relying on a confession allegedly made by the petitioners before the Board, the Board decided that there is no substance in the request of the petitioners and directed that the orders in the **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **8** disciplinary proceedings require no reconsideration. The said order is under challenge in all these writ petitions. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases would contend that in view of the specific directions as contained in the judgments of this Court, the respondent Board ought to have considered the impact of the judgment acquitting them of the charges as against them, which is based on the very same allegations as had been raised against them in the disciplinary proceedings and ought to have taken a decision, in accordance with law. It is stated that the action of the Board in extracting what is styled as an 'oral confession' from them to deny them a proper consideration and the reliefs as sought for is completely unjustifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel would also contend that their contentions as against the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and the finding of guilt as entered by the disciplinary authority also ought to have been considered by the Board, which is not done in **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **9** the instant case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also rely on the decisions of the Apex Court in _**Bhaskar**_ ## _**Reddy S. and Another v. Superintendent of Police and**_ _**Another (2014 KHC 4752)**_ to contend that where disciplinary proceedings were initiated on similar facts and evidence, the honourable aquittal of the employees by the trial Court is a relevant fact which ought to have considered by the respondents. The Apex Court had after considering the contentions of the parties come to a conclusion that an honourable acquittal on the same set of facts would entitle the employees to a dropping of the disciplinary proceedings as well. The orders of dismissal passed against the employees in that cases was set aside and an order of compulsory retirement was imposed and the respondents were directed to pay the pensionray benefits including the arrears, treating the employees as compulsory retired from the date of effect of the judgment of the Criminal Court. **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES 10** 8. Counter affidavits have been placed on record by the Board. It is contended therein that the petitioners had been found guilty in the enquiry proceedings held against them by the Board. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in _**State of Karnataka and another vs. T.Venkataramappa [(1996) 6 SCC 455] and Union of India and another Vs. Bihar Lal Sidhana**_ _**[(1997) 4 SCC 385]**_ , it is contended that the standard of proof required in a criminal trial and in a disciplinary proceedings being completely different, there is absolutely no merit in the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to be reinstated in service on the basis of their acquittal in the criminal proceedings. It is also stated that the acquittal is only on giving the petitioners the benefit of doubt and that the petitioners cannot rely on the said judgment to contend that they are entitled to reinstatement in service, in view of the fact that they had been found guilty in a properly conducted disciplinary proceedings. 9. Reply affidavits have also been placed on **11** ## **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** record, countering the contentions raised in the counter affidavits. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the enquiry was not properly conducted and that since the findings in the eqnuiry were on the basis of the same allegations, which have resulted in an honourable acquittal in criminal proceedings after a full trial, the respondents were duty bound to consider the decision of the Criminal Court and to reinstate the petitioners in service, since there was no independent finding of guilt as against them in the disciplinary proceedings also. 10. I have considered the contentions advanced. In the instant case, though the issue of honourable acquittal by the Criminal Court was pointedly directed to be considered by this Court, Ext.P19 reveals no such consideration of the said aspects of the matter. The Board had proceeded to rely on a confession reportedly made by the petitioners before the Board. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that no such confession had, as a matter of fact, been made by the **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **12** petitioners and that applications made under the Right to Information Act seeking copies of such confession, if any, had been replied in a negative by the Board itself. 11. In any view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the consideration by the Board was not as directed by this Court by judgment dated 28.2.2017. The direction in the judgment was specifically to the Board to consider the claims of the petitioners for reinstatement on account of their aquittal by the Magistrate's Court in the Criminal Cases instituted against them. The impugned order now passed by the Board, which does not consider the impact of the acquittal is by no means a consideration as directed by this Court. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the issue requires reconsideration at the hands of the Board. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the first respondent, Devaswom Board to consider the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement, taking note of the **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **13** specific findings as contained in the judgment of the Criminal Court dated 30.4.2013. The decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in _**Bhaskar Reddy's case**_ as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners will be taken note of by the Board, while passing orders as directed above. The specific grounds raised by the petitioners as against the orders, imposing the penalty will also be considered by the Board, while passing orders, as directed above. Orders shall be passed after hearing the petitioners also within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN** sab **JUDGE** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **14** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1538/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 19.02.2011.** **EXHIBIT P2** **PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER ON 20.07.2009.** **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 551/2009 OF THE JFCM, CHALAKUDY DATED 30.04.2013.** **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. M. 10873/10 DATED 06.11.2013.** **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 30549/13 DATED 28.02.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.04.2017 TO THE BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD DATED 02.06.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CCC 1712/17 DATED 11.10.2017.** **EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT BEARING NO. M. 10873 DATED 12.10.2017.** EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.01.2018 EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 09.02.2018 EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE OFFICER DATED 19.03.2018 EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.04.2018 **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **15** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2342/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.M10873/08 DATED 31-10-2008. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 28-42009.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINDINGS DT.30-9-2009 OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 8-12-2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER NO.M10873/08 DT.19-2-2011. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 30-4-2013 IN C.C.NO.551/2009 OF JFCM, CHALAKKUDY. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-2-2017 IN WP(C)16565/2011. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-10-2017 IN C.O.C.NO.1730/2017. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M-10873/08 DATED 12-10-2017.** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **16** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2503/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 31/10/2008 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES DATED 28/4/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 30/9/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER NO. M- 10873/08 DATED 19/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.551/2009 OF JFCM, CHALAKUDY.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/4/2014 IN WPC NO. 9538/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M-10873/08 DATED 12/10/2017 OF THE BOARD.** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **17** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38496/2017** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 28.04.2009. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.10873/08 DATED 31.10.2008. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) 17309/2009 DATED 16.07.2009. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REPLY DATED 22.07.2009. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.08.2009. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 07.08.2009. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.03.2010. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 07.04.2010. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.04.2010. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02.09.2010. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPLY DATED 17.09.2010. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.09.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 14.12.2010. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14.12.2010. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M-10873/08 DATED 19.02.2011 (UNDER CHALLENGE)** **WP(C).No. 1538 of 2018 AND CONCT. CASES** **18** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN C.C. 551/2009 DATED 30.04.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JFMC, CHALAKKUDY. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO.15521/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2017. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M-10873/08 DATED 12.10.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (UNDER CHALLENGE)**