Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.N.SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRI versus SUB GROUP OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.N.SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRI v. SUB GROUP OFFICER - WP(C) No. 18476 of 2007(Y) [2007] RD-KL 10361 (15 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18476 of 2007(Y)

1. M.N.SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SUB GROUP OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

3. THE COMMISSIONER,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.PADMANABHAN NAIR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :15/06/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P.(C) No.18476 of 2007-Y

Dated this the 15th day of June, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Santhi, working under the respondents. At present, he is attached to Mudayoorkara Devaswom, under the Kaipuzha Sub Group. Certain complaints were raised against the petitioner, by the devotees and the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner has issued Ext.P2 notice, calling upon him to submit his explanation. The petitioner denies all the allegations contained in Ext.P2. He has already submitted Ext.P3 reply. While so, by Ext.P5, the petitioner has been transferred from the present Temple to a nearby Temple called Tharamelidom Devaswom. The petitioner submits, the said transfer has been effected ignoring the options given by him, in Ext.P4. So, he challenges Ext.P5 transfer order. He has already preferred Ext.P7 appeal against Ext.P5, before the third respondent.

2. The transfer is to a nearby place. Therefore, no serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Further, he has been shifted from the present Temple, based on certain allegations against him. Though, he denies those allegations, I think, there is nothing illegal in shifting him, pending enquiry of those allegations. This Court can WPC No.18476 of 2007 2 interfere with a transfer order, if only it is shown to be illegal or vitiated by malafides. I find nothing illegal with Ext.P5., But, if Ext.P7 is received and pending, the third respondent will consider and pass orders on it, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If, as a result of allowing Ext.P7, somebody else is disturbed, needless to say, the said employee shall also be given an opportunity to represent against the same, before final orders are passed. The Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

JUDGE.

MS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.