Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38141/2008 of B.GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38141 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ B.GOPALA KRISHNA BHAT, KEEZH SHANTHI, SREE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA DEVASWOM,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38141 of 2008(N)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------
B.GOPALA KRISHNA BHAT,KEEZH SHANTHI,
SREE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA DEVASWOM,THALASSERRY,KANNURRESIDING AT HOUSE NO.45/569,NEAR SREE LAKSHMINARASIMHA TEMPLE,M.M.ROAD, THALASSERY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KOZHIKODE (ERSTWHILE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERFOR THE HINDU RELIGIOUS ANDCHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS).
2.THE SREELAKSHMI NARASIMHA TEMPLE TRUSTEESREPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,THALASSERY,KANNUR 670 101.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 38141 OF 2008 (N)
====================
Dated this the 26[th]day of December, 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was a Keezshanthi of Sri.Lakshmi Narasimha Temple,Thalasserry.
2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and Ext.P6 is theenquiry report finding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges. Basedon the enquiry report, by Ext.P9 order, the disciplinary authority dismissedthe petitioner from service. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, petitioner filed Ext.P10appeal numbered as AP 13/08 before the 1[st] respondent. Initially the 1[st]respondent granted the interim order of stay by Ext.P12 and the same hasbeen vacated by Ext.P13. It is in these circumstances, the writ petitionhas been filed, seeking to quash Ext.P13.
3. Admittedly, in a disciplinary proceedings petitioner has beenfound guilty and he was removed from service. Once a person has beenremoved from service, unless there are extra ordinary circumstances, thereis no reason to direct his continuance in service pending disposal of theappeal filed by him. In this case, I do not find any such circumstancesjustifying continuance of the petitioner in service. Therefore, I am notpersuaded to interfere with Ext.P13 order vacating the stay order passed Admittedly, in a disciplinary proceedings petitioner has been by the appellate authority.
4. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner has filed Ext.P10
appeal before the 1[st] respondent, which has been numbered as AppealNo.13/08, necessarily, the said appeal has to be disposed of on anexpeditious basis.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st]respondent to dispose of Ext.P10 appeal with notice to the petitioner andthe 2[nd] respondent and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE