IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DBA.No. 10 of 2008()
1. SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND ACCOUNTS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :04/02/2008
O R D E R
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+DBP.No. 10 of 2008()
#1. SUO MOTU
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. THE SECRETARY, TDB, TVM.
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SUO MOTU
^ For Respondent :SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC FOR TDB
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
% Dated :19/12/2008
: O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
D.B.P. NO. 10 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008.
O R D E R
The Ombudsman, in Report No. 88 (renumbered as D.B.P. 10/2008)
filed before this Court, brought to our notice certain transfers and postings
effected by the Travancore Devaswom Board and sought for necessary
direction to restore the position for a smooth and efficient functioning
during Sabarimala season.
2. Sri. G. Anil Kumar was working as an Accommodation Officer at
Sabarimala who was an employee chosen by the Devaswom Commissioner
to assist him in the various works at Sabarimala. We had , by a detailed
order, while constituting the High Power Committee, specifically directed
not to disturb the employees working at Sabarimala and Pampa during the
Mandalam and Makaravilakku season and we had given full power to the
High Power Committee in this regard because if a person entrusted with a
particular work all on a sudden is transferred without notice and knowledge
of the High Power Committee, it may create some difficulties in the
administration especially because during the Sabarimala season various
works will have to be attended with continuity and with efficacy and since
DBP 10/2008 :2:
the entire affairs are now entrusted with the High Power Committee
persons having confidence of that committee should be continued in key
posts. But Sri. G. Anil Kumar was transferred and suspended pending
enquiry by the Board. We have gone through the file and prima facie we
felt that continuation of suspension is not necessary and subsequently,
during the pendency of the proceeding of the Board, it was reported that the
Board has reinstated him in service which fact was recorded in the W.P.(C)
24742/2008. Now what is pending is only the disciplinary action, if any, to
be finalised. Strictly speaking, Sri. Anil Kumar could not have been
transferred in the absence of any permission obtained especially in the light
of the earlier order passed by this Court. Nothing on record is produced to
show that any consultation was made with the Chairman of the High Power
Committee. As regards the further proceedings of Sri. Anil Kumar is
concerned, we have already passed orders in the connected writ petition.
3. The next case is that of one M. Satheesh Kumar who was working
as P.A. to the Commissioner. He was in the cadre of Deputy Devaswom
Commissioner who was reverted as Assistant Commissioner and then
transferred. The explanation offered for the reversion of Satheesh Kumar is
that one B. Unikrishnan Nair, who was kept under suspension, while he was
working as Deputy Commissioner, has been subsequently reinstated,
DBP 10/2008 :3:
pending further enquiry and posted at Thiruvananthapuram and as a result,
one post of Deputy Commissioner has to be adjusted and the junior most
being Satheesh Kumar, he is reverted. But no satisfactory explanation is
offered as to why Satheesh Kumar was not allowed to continue with the
Commissioner. However, during the course of discussion, the Standing
Counsel submitted to us a communication of the Travancore Devaswom
Board to the effect that if the Devaswom Commissioner desires to retain
Satheesh Kumar, there is no impedement in doing so by transferring an
officer who has put in maximum period of service in Devaswom
Commssioner’s Office by observing the rules in force. Since Sri. Satheesh
Kumar was disturbed by a reversion order, we think till the Sabarimala
season is over, he will be allowed to continue in the Office of the
Commissioner without any condition as stated in the communication
referred to above, on working arrangement.
4. We have gone through the file relating to Sri. Balagangadharan. It
appears that due to personal reasons he had some difficulties in working at
Sabarimala. Even though he was given light work at Pampa, considering
his health and his family problems, we do not think that any interference is
called for in his matter, at this stage. He has not made any complaint with
regard thereto.
DBP 10/2008 :4:
5. In the case of Mohanan, whatever exemption has been granted,
we, in the factual situation, direct that no further exemption shall be granted.
It is submitted by the Standing Counsel that he will be reporting for duty
during the second spell if not already reported so far. The Board may
ensure compliance of the same.
6. No person from among the staff in Sabarimala and Pampa posted
on special duty be disturbed without placing it before the High Power
Committee and without getting orders from this Court. Both the Board and
the Commissioner will abide by the directions without giving room for any
complaint of this nature.
Copy of this order may be handed over to all the parties concerned.
P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(JUDGE)
knc/-