High Court Kerala High Court

B.Unnikrishnan Nair vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 26 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
B.Unnikrishnan Nair vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 26 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30346 of 2008(R)


1. B.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O BALAKRISHNAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM

3. THE REGISTRAR, GENERAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANILAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC, TDB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :26/11/2008

 O R D E R
                        P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

                    -------------------------------

                     W.P.(C) No.30346 of 2008

                    -------------------------------

               Dated this the 26th November, 2008.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, an officer in the category of Deputy

Commissioner in the Travancore Devaswom Board, was formerly

the Executive Officer of the Sabarimala Temple. By Ext.P3 order

dated 31.1.2008, he was placed under suspension pending

disciplinary enquiry. This writ petition was thereupon filed

challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus

commanding respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in

service.

2. When the writ petition came up for hearing

today, Sri.Nagraj Narayanan, the learned standing counsel

appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, brought to my

notice that proceedings dated 25.11.2008 has been issued by

the Board revoking Ext.P3 order and directing the petitioner’s

reinstatement in service without prejudice to the continuance of

disciplinary action initiated against him. Yet another proceedings

W.P.(C) No.30346 of 2008

2

dated 25.11.2008 issued by the Board posting the petitioner as

Deputy Devaswom Commissioner at Thiurvananthapuram was

also brought to my notice.

In view of these developments, the writ petitioner

has become infructuous. It is accordingly closed, with a

direction to the respondents to expedite the disciplinary action

initiated against the petitioner and to finalise the same, within a

period of six months from today.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE

nj.