Kerala High Court: Writ Court Can Interfere With Findings Recorded By Inquiry Officer In Disciplinary Proceedings Only If It’s Based On Perverse Finding

The Court dismissed a Writ Appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 by the Appellant, a Senior Clerk in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, challenging the rejection of his claims regarding the temple’s disciplinary action initiated against him.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S held, “ It is trite that in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of evidence. The writ Court can interfere with the findings of guilty recorded by the Inquiry officer only if it was based on perverse finding. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant is in progress. It did not culminate into its natural end.”

Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate G.Sudheer represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Appellant challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, arguing that he was subjected to charges due to complaints he raised regarding temple mismanagement. He alleged that amounts collected from devotees for temple renovations, including "Thazhikakudam," were not utilized as intended. He further submitted concerns regarding the reconstruction of the idol of Lord Viswaksena, missing temple artifacts, and issues related to guesthouse facilities. The respondents denied these allegations, asserting that all administrative actions were taken as per due process and that the Appellant was facing disciplinary action for misconduct.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted, “Though the appellant raised allegations of several improper acts including mismanagement against some persons in the temple administration, he could not substantiate the same by placing any convincing materials on record.”

The Division Bench stated that the representation submitted by the Appellant was considered by the Administrative Committee in detail and found its contents as “per se derogatory and untrue, made in an irresponsible manner without any bonafides.”

Consequently, the Court held, “In such circumstances there is no sufficient ground made out by the appellant which warrants interference of the writ court to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him…Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Babilu Sankar v. Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:19323)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar; Advocates C.S.Manu, Dilu Joseph, C.A.Anupaman, T.B.Sivaprasad, C.Y.Vijay Kumar, Manju E.R.,Anandhu Satheesh, Alint Joseph and Paul Jose

Respondent: Advocates G.Sudheer, R.Harikrishnan and Suraj Kumar

Click here to read/download the Judgment