Isabella Mariam

The Kerala High Court, Division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., dismissed two writ appeals concerning the administration of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. The appeals were filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by an employee of the temple, challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and seeking various directives concerning the temple’s governance. The court declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge and concluded that there were no sufficient grounds for intervention.

The appeals arose from W.P.(C) No. 5229 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 17504 of 2023, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, a Senior Clerk at Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and the President of BMS Karmachari Sangham, approached the court alleging irregularities in the temple’s administration.

Also Read: Major, Married & Earning Children Of Deceased Victim Have Right To Apply For Motor Accident Compensation: Supreme Court

In W.P.(C) No. 5229 of 2023, the appellant sought directions to appoint an IAS or IPS officer as the Executive Officer of the temple, conduct an inquiry into the actions of the previous Executive Officer, entrust ritual-related duties to experienced senior staff, and remove an employee from service based on directions issued by the State Police Chief and the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala.

In W.P.(C) No. 17504 of 2023, the appellant challenged the validity of specific administrative decisions, including his transfer as Storekeeper and the rejection of his medical leave application. The reliefs sought included quashing Exts. P4, P6, P9, and P10, along with any further reliefs deemed appropriate by the court.

The learned Single Judge, in a common judgment dated August 11, 2023, disposed of the writ petitions, issuing directions regarding the handling of the appellant’s objections to the disciplinary proceedings and permitting him to seek medical leave under the applicable rules. The appellant, dissatisfied with the decision, filed these appeals.

The temple administration, represented by the respondents, opposed the writ petitions, asserting that the appellant’s allegations were unsubstantiated and that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in accordance with established procedures. The respondents contended that the appellant’s actions amounted to misconduct and that his complaints contained baseless accusations against the temple authorities.

The Division Bench considered the rival submissions, the materials on record, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The court recorded that “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. Those allegations are refuted by the respondents.”

The court examined the appellant’s complaint, Ext. P16, which detailed various allegations against the temple administration. The appellant stated that funds collected for temple renovations had not been utilized, citing “lakhs of rupees have been collected from the devotees of the Temple by the Administrative Committee on the reason for making ‘Thazhikakudam’ using copper and gold. However, so far ‘Thazhikakudangal’ have not been put up.” He further alleged that donations for the reconstruction of the idol of Lord Viswaksena had been mismanaged and that certain valuable antique items from the temple had been lost or stolen.

The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, denied these allegations and submitted that all financial transactions and administrative decisions were carried out in accordance with proper procedures. The respondents stated that “The ‘Thazhikakudam’ was not installed as it was advised by the ‘Thanthri’ that the same can be installed after carrying out the repairs/renovation of ‘Thazhvaram’.”

Regarding the allegations of financial mismanagement, the respondents stated that “The amounts received as donation for carrying out any renovation works in the temple are deposited in this account. The work relating to the re-construction of the idol of Lord Viswaksenan is one of the works being carried out utilising the fund in this account.”

On the issue of missing temple items, the court noted the appellant’s claims regarding a silver Rudraksha chain and a silver plate. The respondents, however, asserted that “The Guard Naik noticed that the silver tagged Rudraksha adorned on the idol of Hanuman Swamy was missing and later the same was found from the flower waste.” The respondents also addressed the allegations concerning the missing silver plate, stating that “Now the Poovattaka has been replaced. There is no material to show theft. Such allegation of theft is only the assumptions of the petitioner lodged with a malafide intention to tarnish the reputation of the temple.”

The court addressed the appellant’s challenge to his transfer and the disciplinary proceedings. It observed that “It is the employer who has to decide where an employee has to be placed in the office concerned for better administration of that office.” The court noted that the transfer order merely reassigned the appellant within the same office and found no illegality in it.

Regarding the disciplinary proceedings, the court recorded 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.”

The respondents contended that the appellant had failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer, and his allegations against the temple administration were unfounded. The court observed that the disciplinary action was still ongoing and concluded that there were no grounds to interfere at this stage.

The court also noted the appellant’s request for medical leave and recorded that he had been given the liberty to apply for leave in accordance with applicable rules. The competent authority was directed to consider such applications based on his medical condition.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses State Bank of India’s Plea to Expunge Adverse Remarks in SARFAESI Case, Cites Procedural Lapses and Observations on Loan Recovery Delays

The court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, stating that “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 appeals were dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

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

For the Respondents: G. Sudheer, R. Harikrishnan, R. Suraj Kumar (Standing Counsel for Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple)

Case Title: Babilu Sankar v. Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:19323
Case Number: WA Nos. 126 and 146 of 2024
Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran, Justice Muralee Krishna S.

[Read/Download order]