Judgment : Raman, J. Petitioners are Keezhsanthis (Assistant Santhis) in the Sreekrishna Temple, at Guruvayur. They were suspended from service pending enquiry as per Ext.P1 order passed by the Administrator of the Guruvayur Devaswom. They challenge Ext.P1 and seek to quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction and for a declaration that the traditional and hereditary rights enjoyed by them cannot be deprived or denied either by the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee or by the Administrator in terms of the provisions of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act. They also seek for a declaration that the order of suspension is patently violative of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India. 2. The order of suspension happened to be issued when one of the devotees complained to the Administrator of the Guruvayur Devaswom that a cigarette butt was found in the Appam which is a Nivedyam offered to the deity and distributed as prasadam. Petitioners being in charge of preparing the Appam offered to the deity on the day of the incident, they were kept under suspension pending further enquiry. .3. Accordingto the petitioners, the right of Keezhsanthis is a hereditary right conferred on thirteen Namboothiri Illoms and the work relating to such Keezhsanthis in Guruvayur Temple is being attended to by an internal arrangement among the families. Petitioners, while working as Keezhsanthis, were served with an order of suspension Ext.P1, which according to them, is beyond the jurisdiction of the administrative authorities. According to them, they were in charge of preparation of Appam to be offered to the deity as Nivedyam which is religious in character and not secular. Their being Keezhsanthis in the temple is not by way of any appointment by the managing .committee; but by virtue of hereditary right and as such there is no employer-employee relationship between them and the management and that they are not paid any salary but only certain customary considerations are given to them. Their duties as Keezhsanthis include preparation of Nivedyam, attending to cleaning of Sreekoil, helping Thanthri Othikkans and Melsanthi as Parikarmees, performance of the Seeveli Ezhunnellippu, conduct of Tripula, Chandrana aravu, Kalabham Koottal, performance of daily poojas in the temples of Upadevas namely, Ganapathi, Sastha and Bhagavathi and distribution of Prasadom. The thirteen Iloms who have been granted such hereditary right were together entitled for a sum of Rs. The thirteen Iloms who have been granted such hereditary right were together entitled for a sum of Rs. 770.50 per month. The other remunerations they are entitled to are Koonu" for Nivedyam preparations, ages for chandana aravu and Kalabham Koottal and daily pay of Rs. 1.50 for poojas in the subsidiary temples. Besides, they get Nivedyam rice as well as Mura Enna and the women members of their Illoms get Koppu for Udayastahamana pooja etc. Any male member of the above said thirteen Illams completing samavarthanam attains competency to attend to the work in the temple and members are given 1/4 Naraya Nivedyam rice both in the forenoon as well as in the night. In addition to that the Keezhsanthis are given Koorii pattika which represents a percentage of Nivedyam. It is their contention that under Section 34 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, such honour of becoming a Keezhsanthi or receiving remuneration or perquisites by them cannot be interfered with by the Devaswom and the regulations framed under Section 39 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act will not apply to Keezhsanthis who are performing hereditary rights, honour etc. after receiving perquisites since they are not employees covered by the above said Regulations. If at all there is any fault or flaw in their performance as Keezhsanthis, the only remedy is to make them to do "Prayachitham" (Atonement) as ordered by the Thanthri and there is no provision to stop their rights or the perquisites enjoyed by them. Thus, according to the petitioners, the Devaswom have no jurisdiction to interfere with such hereditary right and the order of suspension issued, as though they are employees, is lacking jurisdiction. The duties performed by them as Keezhsanthis are religious in nature and the flaw, if any, for preparation of prasadam can only be remedied by "Prayachitham" as ordered by the Thanthri and not otherwise. It is also contended by them that before issuing Ext.P1 order, they were not heard in the matter and any disciplinary action taken cannot be sustained since such order of suspension could be issued only in appropriate cases where there is possibility of them being meddled with any evidence that may be gathered or collected. .4. In the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the first respondent, it is averred as follows: The petitioners are Keezhsanthis of Guruvayur Temple who are the hereditary employees of Guruvayur Devaswom. .4. In the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the first respondent, it is averred as follows: The petitioners are Keezhsanthis of Guruvayur Temple who are the hereditary employees of Guruvayur Devaswom. Regulation 23(a) and 23(b) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983, suggest powers and rights of the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee upon all types of employees including the hereditary employees of the Devaswom. Besides, Section 10(b), 10(d) and 10(g) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act also empowers the managing committee to take disciplinary action against the employees. As per egulation 23(a), the Kerala State Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 have been made applicable to all the employees including temporary employees and the Administrator is also empowered under Regulation 23(b) to impose punishment on hereditary employee of the Temple except penalties of with-holding of increments or promotion and reduction to a lower rank or to a lower grade or lower stage in the same scale of pay. Similarly situated hereditary employees had filed a writ petition as O.P. 529/1988 wherein also a similar contention that they are hereditary employees and so the Devaswom is not empowered to take any disciplinary action was raised; but by Ext.R1(a) judgment, this Court held that merely because the second petitioner therein was not a full fledged employee of the Devaswom, it could not be said that no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against him and in the absence of any statutory principles the general law would follow and there is nothing illegal in invoking the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 in his case. Keezhsanthis like the petitioners enjoy all the benefits of their services like monthly remuneration, Kooru (share), festival allowances, bonus, medical insurance benefits, admission to their children in Guruvayur Devaswom Educational Institutions through the management quota etc. Besides, they are issued salary certificates, .employment certificates and income certificates from the Devaswom and they are receiving ex-gratia and pension benefits also. Thus, Keezhsanthis are also employees enjoying various facilities as mentioned above. The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee has only acted in good faith and has only taken measures strictly following the provisions contained in the Act. As per Category 80 of the Regulations, the "Santhiyettavar" from among the 13 Keezhsanthi families are selected and their qualification is determined by the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee in which the Thantri is an ex-officio member. The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee has only acted in good faith and has only taken measures strictly following the provisions contained in the Act. As per Category 80 of the Regulations, the "Santhiyettavar" from among the 13 Keezhsanthi families are selected and their qualification is determined by the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee in which the Thantri is an ex-officio member. The real income of the Keezhsanthies are the share (kooru) of all the offerings which come up to an average of Rs. 2,50,000/-per month, the remuneration of preparing sandal paste (chandana aravu) comes to an average of Rs. 2,00,000/-per month and a salary of Rs. 6,500/- for the thirteen illoms (13 x 500) and not as stated by the petitioners. (The details of the share of each Illom and the other average income they would get in a month are also stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit in detail.) Besides, the overaged Keezhsanthies who are unable to perform duties are receiving a monthly consolidated pension of Rs. 1,000/-only because they are employees of the Devaswom. The Zamorin of Calicut who owned the temple had appointed the Keezhsanthies who belong to 13 Illoms at Karassery in Calicut and on coming into force of the Act considering the past services, the Keezhsanthies, Pathukars, Othikans, Kazhakakkar and such others were retained as hereditary employees. The hereditary employees and other employees are working to provide facilities for the performance of the worship by the devotees and thus they all are employees of the Guruvayur Devaswom. The statement of the petitioners that Prayaschitham (Atonement) is done as a remedy for the flaw, if any, on their part is misconceived and without merit since atonement is only to remove the impurity of the deity and the asudhi inside the temple caused by the impure offering; however, for the carelessness and failure on the part of the Keezhsanthies, the Devaswom is entitled to take disciplinary action. A devotee got a cigarette butt from inside the Appam which shows that the said butt was there in the jaggery liquid at the time of preparation. Like the petitioners, hereditary employees called "Pathukaran" who supplied the jaggery are also placed under suspension. A devotee got a cigarette butt from inside the Appam which shows that the said butt was there in the jaggery liquid at the time of preparation. Like the petitioners, hereditary employees called "Pathukaran" who supplied the jaggery are also placed under suspension. On receipt of a complaint from the devotee, an enquiry was conducted by the Chief Finance & Accounts Officer and the Deputy Administrator (Store & Purchase) and on the basis of the report submitted by them, the Guruvayur Devaswom Committee which includes the Thantri (who is the ex-officio member of the Devaswom) met on 110.2008 and decided to place the petitioners under suspension pending enquiry. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of suspension and it was done only as an interim measure to safe-guard the belief of the devotees and the interest of the temple and to maintain order and discipline amongst the employees. On 20.10.2008, a memo of charges has been served on the petitioners. Further, even though the petitioners are placed under suspension, other male members of their family are performing the duties and enjoying the perquisites and hence the families of the petitioners are not deprived of the benefits enjoyed by them as hereditary employees of the Devaswom. The incident of finding a cigarette butt from the Appam and repetition of three days poojas were reported by the media and the same had created great harm to the reputation of the Devaswom. 5. Though there are various other averments made in the counter affidavit, they may not be quite relevant to the issue arising for consideration in the case. .6. Petitioners in their reply affidavit has reiterated their submission that Keezhsanthies are not employees of the Guruvayur Devaswom. 5. Though there are various other averments made in the counter affidavit, they may not be quite relevant to the issue arising for consideration in the case. .6. Petitioners in their reply affidavit has reiterated their submission that Keezhsanthies are not employees of the Guruvayur Devaswom. According to them, before the Guruvayur Devaswom came into being, their families were enjoying the hereditary right and even after coming into force of the Act, any power on the Devaswom committee has been specifically excluded under Section 34 and 35 of the Act, that they are totally excluded from the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983, that even if here is any mistake or misconduct in performing the religious function, the only authority to take action is the Thanthri and he has already imposed a punishment on them by directing to perform prayachitha pooja for three days, that in the absence of specific mention of Keezhsanthis under the Regulation, such Keezhsanthis cannot be treated as employees of the Devaswom, that the Administrator is not vested with any power to initiate disciplinary proceedings .against the employees, that in Ext.P4 produced in the case, the Devaswom has taken the stand that petitioners who are hereditary employees are not employees of the Devaswom and by virtue of the order of suspension, they are debarred from doing the hereditary duties thereby infringing Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of India. 7. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Senior Counsel Sri. U.K. Ramakrishnan, appearing on behalf of the respondents. We have perused the averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavit and reply affidavit as also the exhibits produced in the case. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly stressed on the following points: (i) That the petitioners who are Keezhsanties are not employees of Guruvayur Devaswom and there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioners and the Devaswom Administration. According to him, the thirteen Nampoothiri Illoms were given the right of Keezhsanthies and it is by virtue of an internal arrangement between the families that the petitioners became Keezhsanthies of Guruvayur Temple. According to him, the thirteen Nampoothiri Illoms were given the right of Keezhsanthies and it is by virtue of an internal arrangement between the families that the petitioners became Keezhsanthies of Guruvayur Temple. Such hereditary rights are not liable to be suspended under the guise of any disciplinary action by the administration, (ii) that the Guruvayur Devaswom administration in the aforesaid circumstances, has no jurisdiction to place the petitioners under suspension and (iii) that the order of suspension was issued without even hearing the petitioners and hence not valid in law and even before conducting an enquiry, in the factual situation, the Administration ought not have proceeded to suspend the petitioners and such action is highly excessive. 9. According to the respondents, a complaint was received by the Devaswom from a devotee alleging that on 110.2008 from the Appam offered as Nivedyam to the deity (which was distributed as prasadam to the devotees) a cigarette butt was found out and based on the preliminary enquiry report and the explanation given by the "Santhiyettavar" (Supervisor of Keezhsanthies) a prima facie case was made out for further enquiry and accordingly, petitioners who were engaged in the preparation of "Appam" on the alleged day, were kept under suspension pending enquiry as per the decision taken by Guruvayur Devaswom Committee on 110.2008. On receipt of Ext.P1 order of suspension, petitioners submitted a reply Ext.P2 denying the allegations contained in Ext.P1 and further contending that the suspension is without even seeking an explanation from them. They also requested to withdraw the action taken against them as per Ext.P1. Later, petitioners were issued a charge sheet and further action is pending. According to the petitioners, they are discharging their duties as Keezhsanthies in the Temple as per the hereditary right conferred on thirteen Namboothiri Illoms of which they are members and hence they are not employees of the Guruvayur Devaswom nor are they appointed by the management and hence there is no employee - employer relationship between the petitioners and the Devaswom and so, the respondents have no jurisdiction to place them under suspension pending any disciplinary action. It is their further case that preparation and offering of Nivedyam to the deity is religious and not secular in character and if at all, the only person authorised to take any action is the Thanthri of the Temple and they having performed atonement by re-doing the poojas for three days as ordered by the Thanthri, no further action could be taken. .10. The respondents, on the other hand, would submit that even though offering of Nivedyam to the deity is religious, preparation of the same is only secular in character and at any rate, any negligence on the part of the person preparing Nivedyam is certainly a matter against which action can be taken by the Administration. It is also their case that Keezhsanthies are hereditary employees and merely because there is no appointment or selection to the post of Keezhsanthies, that is not relevant in deciding the jural relationship of the petitioners and the respondents. So long as the petitioners are receiving remuneration and various other benefits from the Devaswom as highlighted in the counter affidavit, it is idle to contend that they are not employees of Guruvayur Devaswom. Referring to Ext.P4 communication produced along with the reply affidavit, learned standing counsel .submitted that as against Ext.P4, the Keezhsanthies themselves have filed an appeal and their specific stand is that they are employees of the temple and they cannot be treated differently from other employees. 11. It is settled law that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily will not interfere with an order of suspension pending enquiry unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting such interference, either when the order is issued totally without jurisdiction or actuated by mala fides and on similar grounds. It is also equally true that suspension pending enquiry itself is not a punishment; but merely keeps away the employees from the place of work so as to conduct a proper enquiry. In this case, since the jurisdiction of the respondents in issuing Ext.P1 is challenged, we have to examine the same with reference to the contentions raised by the parties. 12. As per the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, the administration, control and management of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple including its properties and endowments and subordinate temples attached to it are vested in a committee in the manner constituted as provided in the act. 12. As per the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, the administration, control and management of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple including its properties and endowments and subordinate temples attached to it are vested in a committee in the manner constituted as provided in the act. The composition of the Committee as per Section 4 of the Act would show that the Thanthri (of the Temple) himself is an ex-officio member. There are altogether nine members in the committee and one has to be elected as the chairman. It is that Committee, including the Thanthri, who decided to keep the petitioners under suspension. According to the petitioners, as per Section 34, which is a saving provision, nothing in the Act shall affect any honour, emolument or perquisite to which any person is entitled by custom or otherwise from or in the Devaswom or its established usage in regard to any other matter and therefore, the various benefits conferred on a hereditary employee cannot be stopped or taken away by the respondents. But the respondents pointed out that whatever benefits due to the 13 Namboothiri Illoms are continued to be paid even after Ext.P1 to the respective Illoms and in the place of the petitioners, other representatives from the same Illoms have been engaged to do the work attached to Keezhsanthies. Therefore, the hereditary right as such to receive any remuneration or benefit is for the 13 Illoms (family) and no right is conferred on any on any particular individual. Even after the suspension of the petitioners, the substitutes engaged are from the same family and are paid all the attendant benefits as hitherto received by the petitioners. As such, the argument based on Section 34 of the Act is without any force. 13. As per Section 35 of the Act, the Thanthri is the final authority in religious matters and nothing in the Act shall be deemed to authorise the committee or Commissioner or Government to interfere with the religious or spiritual matters pertaining to Devaswom and the decision of the Thanthri of the Temple on all religious spiritual ritual or ceremonial matters pertaining to Devaswom shall be final unless such decision violates any provision contained in any law in force. The contention of the petitioners is that the preparation and offering of Appam and other items of Nivedyam to deity is a religious matter and hence it is only the Thanthri who is authorised to take any decision in the matter and the respondents are not authorised to interfere with such religious rites. Petitioners place reliance on the decision of the apex court in Secretary, Home ( Endowments), Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Digyadarsan Rajendra Ram Dasjee Varu (AIR 1968 SC 105) to support their contention. That was a case where a dispute arose regarding the succession to the Office of the Mahant of the Math. The respondent therein claimed to have succeeded as Mahant in his own right whereas the Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, received telegram stating that there was a dispute about the person who was to succeed as Mahant. The Government appointed the respondent therein as an interim Mahant and later, the Government issued a show cause notice to the respondent as to why the earlier order shall not be cancelled. The Government also proceeded on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to appoint an interim Mahant as was done earlier. By the same order of the State Government the respondent was placed under suspension. There were other proceedings in the civil court, reference to which may not be necessary for the limited purpose of understanding the principle held in the said decision. The High court held that the respondent has succeeded as Mahant and hence there was no vacancy in the office of the Trustee so as to enable the Department to take any action under the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act. In para 12, the Apex Court considered the question as to whether the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. had jurisdiction to assume management of the Math in question under Section 53 of the Act, which depends upon the question as to whether the State Government had jurisdiction to place the respondent under suspension as they have purported to do, by their order dated 9.1995. Reference was made to Sections 52 and 53 of the Act and it was held that Section 53 (1) contemplates four contingencies under which the Assistant Commissioner may take steps for temporary custody and protection of the Math, of which the court was concerned only with the first one and before that provision can be invoked, two conditions are necessary (viz) (a) a vacancy must have occurred in the office of the trustee of a math; and (b) there must be a dispute, respecting the right of succession to such office. It was held that it is possible to say that there is a dispute in respect of the right of succession to the office of the Mahant. Regarding the other condition to be satisfied before action is taken, it was held that the assumption of office of the management can be made by the Department only when there exist a vacancy as a fact in the sense that nobody with any legal right has assumed office of the trustee of the Math. Since the High Court had found that the respondent has succeed to the Office of Mahant on March, 18, 1962, on the death of the previous Mahant which admission had been proved by the Akada Panchayat by a resolution passed in this regard, the apex court accepted the view of the High Court that there was no vacancy in the office of the trustee of the Math so as to give jurisdiction to the Department to take action under Section 53 of the Act. 14. Therefore, the said decision has no bearing on the issue that arises for consideration in this case since that was a case where the question arose was as to whether the two conditions required for exercising jurisdiction by the Department were in fact satisfied and on facts it was found that the conditions were not satisfied so as to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 53 of the Act. 15. Nowwe may refer to the other decisions to which reference was made during the course of arguments, by both sides. 16. The Apex Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sree Lakshmindra Tirtha Swaminar of Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR 1954 SC 282) held as follows: "Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. 16. The Apex Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sree Lakshmindra Tirtha Swaminar of Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR 1954 SC 282) held as follows: "Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in God or in any intelligent First Cause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept. It might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress." xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx What constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. If the tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day, that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred texts or oblations to the sacred fire, all these would be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character; all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion within the meaning of Article 26(b)." 17. In ShriGovindalalji v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1638), the Honourable Supreme Court held thus: "It cannot be ignored that what is protected under Arts. 25(1) and 26(b) respectively are the religious practices and the right to manage affairs in matters of religion. If the practice in question is purely secular or the affair which is controlled by the statute is essentially and absolutely secular in character, it cannot be urged that Art. 25(1) or Article 26(b) has been contravened. 25(1) and 26(b) respectively are the religious practices and the right to manage affairs in matters of religion. If the practice in question is purely secular or the affair which is controlled by the statute is essentially and absolutely secular in character, it cannot be urged that Art. 25(1) or Article 26(b) has been contravened. The protection is given to the practice of religion and to the denominations right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Therefore, whenever a claim is made on behalf of an individual citizen that the impugned statute contravenes his fundamental right to practice religion or a claim is made on behalf of the denomination that the fundamental right guaranteed to it to manage its own affairs in matters of religion is contravened, it is necessary to consider whether the practice in question is religious or the affairs in respect of which the right of management is alleged to have been contravened are affairs in matters of religion. If the practice is a religious practice or the affairs are the affairs in matter of religion, then of course, the right guaranteed by Article 25(1) and Article 26(b) cannot be contravened." 18. In the said decision, it was also observed that in regard to Hindu religion, sometimes practices religious and secular are inextricably mixed up. But the task of disengaging the secular from the religious though not easy, has nevertheless to be attempted in dealing with the claims for protection under Articles 25 (1) and 26(b). 19. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Sri Archakam Peddinti Srinivasamurthy Dikshitulu v. The Commissioner, Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and Endowments in Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (AIR 1973 AP 325) had occasion to consider the question as to whether interference with the offering of food which are matters concerning religion, infringes Article 26(b) of the Constitution of India. In that case, the petitioner before the High Court was a hereditary Archakam Mirasidar of the Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanams at Tirupati rendering Archakatwam service in the holy shrine of Lord Sree Venkateswaraswami Varu situate at Tirumalai Hills and all the shrines attached thereto and other temples situate at Tirupati and attached to the said Devasthanam. There are various rights, honours, emoluments and perquisites attached and due to the said hereditary Archaka Mirasidars, which they are entitled to as per long established custom and usage. There are various rights, honours, emoluments and perquisites attached and due to the said hereditary Archaka Mirasidars, which they are entitled to as per long established custom and usage. The Archakatwam service in Sree Venkateswara Swami Temple is rendered by four families who belong to the Vaikhanasa school of Srivaishnavites, of which the petitioner belonged to. The said service is rendered by turns which lasted for one year on commencement. It was the contention of the petitioner that religious rites especially those of worship of the deity are according to the Vaikhanasa Agamas and in those Agamas, the Neivedyam that has to be offered to the deity at various times of worship and also at the various Utsavams of the deity have been specified in very great detail. Not only the kind of Neivedyam that has to be offered at the time of each worship and in each Utsavam has specified, but also the quantity of such Neivedyam and the quantity of the ingredients of each of the item that is offered as Neivedyam has also been specified in Vaikhanasa Agama Sastras. According to the petitioner therein, the quantity of food and offering also what are known as Pannayarams ie. the fried offerings to Lord Venkateswara, have been offered according to the Vaikhanasa Agamas from time immemorial since the worship at the temple was first started and all these centuries the quantities of the food offerings or the Pannyarajms have not been reduced in quantity at any time though the prices which a Grahastha has to pay at the time of such worship or the performance of various Utsavams and Arjitha Sevas have been increased from time to time. The Archaka Mirasidars along with other Mirasidars of the temple are entitled to a particular share in these food offerings and Pannyarams. To render the services effectively, the Archakas have to engage and appoint a number of Gumasthas, who are well versed in the Vaikhanasa Agamas to offer worship and also to perform the various Arjitha Sevas and Utsavams. In 1963, the Archakas made a representation to the temple authorities seeking enhancement in their emoluments and perquisites in view of the change of circumstances and high cost of living. Based on that sanction was accorded to increase the cash emoluments to all the mirasidars by 50%. But instead of that the increase had not been effected. In 1963, the Archakas made a representation to the temple authorities seeking enhancement in their emoluments and perquisites in view of the change of circumstances and high cost of living. Based on that sanction was accorded to increase the cash emoluments to all the mirasidars by 50%. But instead of that the increase had not been effected. In addition to the non payment of the aforesaid increase, the Commissioner for Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments passed an order accepting the proposal of the Executive Officer to reduce the size of "Prokthupadi Laddu" intended for sale to pilgrims to half the then size and sell the same at Re.1/- each instead of Rs.2/-. The said "Prokthupadii Laddu" is one of the offerings made on behalf of the Devasthanams to Lord Venkateswara. There was another order passed by the Commissioner approving the proposal of the Executive Officer of the Devasthaam to reduce the quantities of certain offerings by 50%. These two orders passed by the Commissioner were impugned in the writ petition mainly on the grounds that they affect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and are therefore void, that they are contrary to section 102 of the Act and hence bad, that the emoluments to which the petitioner is entitled are in the nature of a right to property and Section 23 of the Act which affects those rights infringes Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Thus, the question which fell for determination was whether such offerings of food or Pannyarams attract the provisions of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and it was held as follows: "..........It is now well settled that the word "religion"in Article 25 of the Constitution not only includes the system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well being; but also includes a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept. It also includes rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress in view of the Supreme Court decisions to which we will presently refer, it can no longer be said that matters of food do not form part of religion if such food offerings are prescribed at particular rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship and form an integral part of such rituals, observances, worship etc." 20. In para 20 of the judgment while considering as to whether the Act under consideration therein authorised the reduction of Dittam offered to the deity it was held as follows: "The question then is whether section 23 of the Act as it empowers the authorities mentioned therein to fix or alter the Dittam which includes the reduction of Dittam is void as in certain cases of reduction religious rites are likely to be affected. Section 23 says that while fixing or altering the Dittam, due regard will be had to the established usage, if any, the performance of the ceremonies and services and the observance of festivals, worships and the like appropriate to the religious denomination to which the religious institution or endowment belongs and to the financial position thereof. The reference to the established usage and the performance of the ceremonies and services and the observance of festivals, worships and the like, clearly refers that due regard will be paid to the religious aspect of these ceremonies, services, observance of festivals and worship etc. It does not empower the authority concerned to fix or alter the Dittam without regard to the religious aspect of the same. Section 23 enjoins upon the authorities to fix the Dittam in such a manner that it does not in any way affect matters of religion and thus infringe Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. We interpret the provisions of Section 23 to mean that the authorities concerned, while acting under that section, will act in a manner so as not to interfere with matters of religion. The question therefore of striking down the section does not rise. We interpret the provisions of Section 23 to mean that the authorities concerned, while acting under that section, will act in a manner so as not to interfere with matters of religion. The question therefore of striking down the section does not rise. Every individual case of fixation or alteration of Dittam will have to be taken into consideration and if it is found that such fixation or alteration infringes Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, such fixation or alteration will have to be struck down. The contention, therefore, of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 23 of the Act is void as it infringes Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution." 21. Then referring to the contention that Section 23 infringes the property right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, it was held that "Section 23 of the Act enjoins upon the authorities concerned to pay due regard to the established usage which would also include cases where persons holding the office of Archakas have a beneficial interest in the Dittam. The authorities concerned cannot, while acting under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, act in a manner so as to affect the property right of a Archaka. Here again the Court can interfere only in cases where it is brought to its notice that a particular order issued under Section 23 has affected the property rights of the Archakas. Section 23 of the Act cannot be struck down, but it is only an order affecting the property rights of an Archaka that can be struck down." 22. After considering the two orders impugned, the High Court held that the reduction of quantity of Dittam is a matter of religion and merely because it involves expenditure of money or employment of priest and servants or the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character and all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion within the meaning of Article 26(b). 23. In A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1765) the apex court held that the word religion in Articles 25 and 26 has to be construed in its strict and etymological sense and every aspect of religion is not safeguarded by the Constitution. 23. In A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1765) the apex court held that the word religion in Articles 25 and 26 has to be construed in its strict and etymological sense and every aspect of religion is not safeguarded by the Constitution. It was further held as follows: "A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs and doctrine which are regarded by those who profess religion to be conducive to their spiritual well-being. A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has outward expression in acts as well. It is not every aspect of religion that has been safeguarded by Articles 25 and 26 nor has the Constitution provided that every religious activity cannot be interfered with. Religion, therefore, be construed in the context of Articles 25 and 26 in its strict and etymological sense. Every religion must believe in a conscience and ethical and moral precepts. Therefore, whatever binds a man to his own conscience and whatever moral or ethical principle regulate the lives of men believing in that theistic, conscience or religions belief that alone can constitute religion as understood in the Constitution which fosters feeling of brotherhood, amenity, fraternity and equality of all persons which find their foot-hold in secular aspect of the Constitution. Secular activities and aspects do not constitute religion which brings under its own cloak every human activity. There is nothing which a man can do, whether in the way of wearing clothes or food or drink, which is not considered a religious activity. Every mundane or human activity was not intended to be protected by the Constitution under the guise of religion. The approach to construe the protection of religion or matter of religion or religious practices guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 must be viewed with pragmatism since by the very nature of things, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to define the expression religion or matters of religion or religious belief or practice. Therefore, the right to religion guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 is not an absolute or unfettered right to propagating religion which is subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity -economic, financial, political or secular -which are associated with religious belief, faith, practice or custom. They are subject to reform on social welfare by appropriate legislation by the State. They are subject to reform on social welfare by appropriate legislation by the State. Though religious practices and performances of acts in pursuance of religious belief are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in a particular doctrine, that by itself is not conclusive or decisive. What are essential parts of religion or religious belief or matters of religion and religious practice is essentially a question of facts to be considered in the context in which the question has arisen and the evidence - factual or legislative or historic -presented in that context is required to be considered and a decision reached." 24. The Apex court was considering as to whether the abolition of hereditary right to appointment is violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It was held that hereditary right to appointment is not essential part of religion or matter of religion or religious practice. It was also held that performance of religious service according to the tenets, agamas, customs and usages prevalent in the temple etc. is an integral part of the religious faith and belief and to that extent the legislature cannot intervene to regulate it. But the service of the priest (archaka) is a secular part. The right to perform religious service has appointment by the owner of the temple or king as its source. The legislature is competent to enact the law taking away the hereditary right to succeed to an office in the temple and equally to the office of the priest (archaka). The hereditary right as such is not integral part of the religious practice but a source to secure the services of a priest independent of it. Though performance of the ritual ceremonies is an itegral part of the religion, the person who performs it or associates himself with performance of ritual ceremonies, is not. Therefore, when the hereditary right to perform service in the temple is terminated by an owner for bad conduct, its abolition by sovereign legislature is equally valid and legal. Regulation of his service conditions is sequenced to the abolition of hereditary right of succession of the office of an archaka. Though an archaka integrity associates himself with the performance of ceremonies rituals and daily pooja to the Deity, he is a holder of the office of priest (archaka) in the temple. Regulation of his service conditions is sequenced to the abolition of hereditary right of succession of the office of an archaka. Though an archaka integrity associates himself with the performance of ceremonies rituals and daily pooja to the Deity, he is a holder of the office of priest (archaka) in the temple. So are the other office holders or employees of the temple. Though archaka is normally a well--versed and accomplished person in the Agamas and rituals necessary to be performed in a temple, he is the holder of an office in the temple. He is subject to the disciplinary power of a trustee or an appropriate authority prescribed in the regulations or rules of the Act. He owes his existence to an order of appointment be it in writing or otherwise. He is subject to the discipline at par with other members of the establishment. Though after appointment, as an integral part o the daily rituals, he performs worship in accordance with the Agamas Sastras, it is no ground to hold that his appointment is either a religious practice or a matter of religion. It is not an essential part of religion or matter of religion or religious practice. Therefore, abolition of the hereditary rights to appointment under Section 34 is not violative of either Article 25(1) or 26(b) of the Constitution. (See paras 120 & 121) 25. The above decision squarely answers the point that even if a person has got a hereditary right to hold the office of Keezhsanthi, his service is still secular in character and such hereditary right can even be taken away by a legislation. It is true that the integral part of the work of the Keezhsanthi or a Santhi may be religious, but his service as a Santhi of the temple is secular. Likewise, a Keezhsanthi who in the performance of his work may associate himself with a religious character also but his service as Keezhsanthi is secular. In other words, his manner of performance of a religious character cannot be interfered with but the conduct of the person during and in the course of such performance is not beyond check and control by the authorities. He is still a holder of an office in the Devaswom and he is not beyond the disciplinary power of the authorities as prescribed by law. He is still a holder of an office in the Devaswom and he is not beyond the disciplinary power of the authorities as prescribed by law. A person may owe his existence as Keezhsanthi either through an order in writing or even otherwise. 26. The words "or otherwise" denote an appointment to an office by custom, practice or on hereditary right. The duties performed as a Keezhsanthi may include religious and secular or both. But his right to perform the duties merely because it is hereditary does not mean that he is not part of the establishment. It cannot be contended that merely because the right of being Keezhsanthi is conferred on certain families and in turn petitioners, who are members of the said families, happened to do the work of Keezhsanthies in the temple are beyond the disciplinary control of the administration. 27. We may now turn to the question whether preparation of food items offered to the deity as Nivedyam is secular or religious. .28. Inpara 28 of the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.A.P. Srinivasamurthys case .(AIR 1973 AP 325) various extracts from the Agama Shastras are referred to, to show that these Shastras not only ordain the manner of performing the worship but also lay down the quantities in which the Naivedyam has to be offered. 29. The extracts of Agama Sastra show that the "Havis" to be offered to God at various poojas, Utsavams and Sevas have been stated in great detail even giving details of the ingredients each "Havis" should contain. By a reading of the aforesaid extracts, it becomes clear that the ingredients of the "Havis" are not secular matters but matters connected with religion. It is ordained by the Agama Shastras that if poojas have to be offered the Havis should be offered in a particular manner consisting of particular quantities of the ingredients so that the person who performs the pooja may be benefited thereby. As held by the apex court in Shirur Mutts case (1954 SC 282) offering of food at any particular interval may be religious as also the modes of worship, rituals, ceremonies are religious and the forms and observance may even extend to matters of food and dress. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the larger contention put forth by the respondents that preparation of food is totally secular. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the larger contention put forth by the respondents that preparation of food is totally secular. Not only the ingredients with which the food is prepared, but also the manner in which it has to be prepared, may, to certain extent, satisfy the religious nature of performance of the same. But at the same time, we are unable to accept the contention that an irreligious conduct on the part of the person who prepare the same is in any way religious. According to us, the conduct of the person has nothing to do with the religious faith attached to such duties. If in the performance of any such act, a person misconduct himself, that is certainly a secular matter and as has been held by the apex court, the fact that a person happens to offer his service based on his hereditary right will not absolve him from being proceeded with any disciplinary action in case he misconduct himself in the performance of such duties. The fact that the Thanthri has prescribed prayaschitham of three days poojas by itself will not absolve them from any action, if warranted. The spiritual remedy is only to maintain the purity and even if preparation of prasadam is held to be religious in nature, the conduct of the person during the course of such preparation cannot be said to be religious, but only secular in character. In other words, person in charge of the preparation of prasadam is by his own act affecting the purity from the point of view of religious faith must be liable to be corrected since the conduct of the person is something in which spiritual remedy may not be quite sufficient or appropriate. One may perform any purificatory act as to preserve the spiritual power of the deity or to ward off any evil consequence. This by itself will not in any way curtail the action being pursued on the administrative side if the facts and circumstances do warrant the same. A religious ceremony is also performed by the person employed. What is performed as fundamental right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution extends to the performance of religious rites which is distinct from appointment or service of the performer or his behaviour and conduct. 30. A religious ceremony is also performed by the person employed. What is performed as fundamental right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution extends to the performance of religious rites which is distinct from appointment or service of the performer or his behaviour and conduct. 30. Based on the foregoing discussion, it has to be held that the offering of various items of food to the deities is religious in character and even if we are persuaded to hold that the preparation of various items of food offered as Neivedyam to the deity may be religious in character the real question is whether the performer of such duties himself is saved from any disciplinary action, in case in the course of such performance, he has misconducted himself. To our mind, it appears that the religious right is protected by the Constitution and in that matter even saving provisions are contained in Section 35 of the Act and on such religious and spiritual matters the ultimate authority to take a decision is the Thanthri. But the conduct of the performer while or in the course of his duties are not religious in character and hence not saved from being proceeded with in accordance with law and not unconstitutional. .31. Even though the preparation of the Nivedyam is considered to be religious it cannot however, be said that the conduct of the person engaged while and during the course of such preparation is in any way religious. Any negligence in the preparation of the sacred Nivedyam affects the conduct of the person and the remedy lies in correcting the person by appropriate action. Whether or not there was any negligence on the part of the person engaged in the work is certainly a question of fact to .be proved in evidence in any enquiry. .32. The next contention advanced is that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Devaswom and the petitioners. In this connection, placing reliance on the regulation framed under Section 39 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, it is contended that the categories of posts mentioned under Clause 5 of the Regulations, for which method of appointment is prescribed does not include the post of "Keezhsanthies" and only those who hold the posts categorized thereunder are employees of the Devaswom. In this connection, placing reliance on the regulation framed under Section 39 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, it is contended that the categories of posts mentioned under Clause 5 of the Regulations, for which method of appointment is prescribed does not include the post of "Keezhsanthies" and only those who hold the posts categorized thereunder are employees of the Devaswom. But the petitioners could not deny that "Melsanthi" and Santhiyettavar are covered by item 79 and 80 of the Regulations. Keezhsanthies are only assistants to the Melsanthi and Santhiyettavar are selected from the Keezhsanties for six months on rotation. They are supervisors of Keezhsanthies. The non-inclusion of Keezhsanthies from the posts categorized is for the reason that they are not persons to whom any method of appointment is prescribed. Regulation 5 merely prescribes the method of appointment. In the case of Keezhsanthies they are members of the 13 Illoms who are given the hereditary right by the erstwhile Ruler and continued even after the commencement of the Devaswom Board. So, no separate method is to be prescribed for their engagement. That does not mean that they are not employees at all. Even a person engaged as per custom, hereditary or otherwise can still be called appointees "otherwise made" though not in writing by any order of appointment as held by the apex court in Narayana Deekshitulus case (AIR 1996 SC 1765). As per Regulation 23 (a) in the case of employees of the Devaswom service the provisions contained in the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules 1960 shall be applicable. Regulation 23(b) expressly provides that in the case of hereditary employees of the temple, the penalties of (i) with-holding of increments or promotion (ii) reduction to lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower grade or to a lower stage in a time scale of pay will not apply and the Administrator may order other penalties. The above proviso implies that hereditary employees are also employees under the disciplinary control of the administration. Similar contentions raised by similarly situated persons were considered by this Court earlier and negatived in Ext.R1 judgment rendered in O.P. 529/1988. Petitioners therein were also members of Othikkan family who had hereditary rights in the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Swami Temple. The above proviso implies that hereditary employees are also employees under the disciplinary control of the administration. Similar contentions raised by similarly situated persons were considered by this Court earlier and negatived in Ext.R1 judgment rendered in O.P. 529/1988. Petitioners therein were also members of Othikkan family who had hereditary rights in the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Swami Temple. They were kept under suspension as some gold ornaments were found lost from the Temple ad a criminal complaint was filed agaisnt the petitioners. It is thereafter that the petitioners were suspended. Challenging the order of suspension, the writ petition was filed. The main ground urged by them for revoking the suspension is that they are hereditary Othikans of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Swami Temple and they are entitled to get special privileges as they are hereditary employees and that they are not employees of the Devaswom and the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to them. It was also contended that they are not performing any duties under any order of appointment and therefore, the order of suspension is illegal and unenforcible. It was further contended that the provisions of Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 will not in any way curtail the petitioners right, since such rights are saved by the provisions of the Act. K.G. Balakrishnan, J., as he then was, while rendering the judgment, held that merely because the second petitioner therein is not an employee of the Devaswom, it cannot be said that no proceeding could be initiated against him and in the absence of any statutory principle, the general law would follow and in that case there is nothing illegal in invoking Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations 1983 and therefore, the proceedings by way of suspension was refused to be quashed. After referring to the contention of the parties, the court held that though it may be true that the petitioners therein cannot be termed as full-fledged employees of the Devaswom as it is a hereditary right of the families to perform the religious duties in the temple, at the same time, both the petitioner had access to the temple and temple properties and the first petitioner was performing pooja in the temple for a considerable period and therefore, if any loss is sustained, they are answerable to such loss. However, in that decision, the further question as to whether the petitioners therein, by the mere fact that they were members of the Illom having hereditary right, could still be considered as hereditary employees was not considered in detail. At the same time, even assuming that they are not full-fledged employees, still it was held that they are amenable to the control of the .general administration and in the absence of any specific rule, the general priciples contained in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules will apply while taking disciplinary action. In the present case, though the petitioners would contend that they are not receiving any remuneration and that there is no employer -employee relationship between them and the Devaswom, it has been demonstrated by filing a detailed counter affidavit that the income of the Keezhsanthies includes a share of all the offerings up to an average of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month, the remuneration of preparing sandal paste which comes to an average of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month and a salary of Rs. 6,500/- for the thirteen Illoms (13 x 500) are availed of by them per month. Thus, each Illom can get an average of Rs. 13,500/-per month. Each Keezhsanthi receives 1/4 Naraya rice both in the forenoon and in the night. They are also given Mura Enna (oil). Besides, they avail of special Ulthsava batta during Onam and special remuneration for ceremonies and celebrations. They are given Koppu (value of articles like rice, etc.) of Udayasthamana Pooja. Some of them also receive remuneration for prasada oottu vilambal. Further, keezhsanthees at the three Upadeva temples and at the prasadam counter also receive Nadavaravu (dakshina) and the over-aged Keezhsanthies who are unable to perform duties are receiving a monthly consolidated pension of Rs. 1,000/- . Thus, it cannot be said that for the work they performed in the temple, they are not paid any remuneration. They are given remuneration both in kind and in cash. Though they may not be receiving a fixed amount by way of salary in any particular scale of pay, the averments clearly show that they are in receipt of various benefits from the Devaswom. Their performance of work is in a regulated manner. Their work is connected with the temple affairs. Though they may not be receiving a fixed amount by way of salary in any particular scale of pay, the averments clearly show that they are in receipt of various benefits from the Devaswom. Their performance of work is in a regulated manner. Their work is connected with the temple affairs. In these circumstances, though the manner of their engagement in the temple may be by virtue of any such custom or any hereditary right, it cannot be said that there is no employer employee relationship at all. On the other hand, as we have already indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, the regulation stipulates disciplinary action and imposition of penalties except certain penalties. We are therefore, unable to agree with the contention either. 7.33. It is true that suspension of an employee pending disciplinary proceedings and departmental enquiry is not automatic or matter of administrative routine, but is discretionary as held by this Court in Vikraman Nair K. v. State of Kerala (2008(4) KHC 412) and it is necessary to consider the gravity of the offence with which misconduct is alleged and sought to be enquired into or investigated before a person is ordered to be kept under suspension. But at the same time, public interest on the impact of the delinquents continuance in office till such enquiry is over, is also a matter which the authority concerned would bear in mind while deciding whether the employee should be placed under suspension. In the present case, the petitioners are suspended as they were found to be on duty engaged in preparation of Appam on the date of the incident and a complaint was received from a devotee that a cigarette butt was found from inside the Appam distributed as prasadam on that day. The Sree Krishna Swami Temple at Guruvayur is one of the famous temples in South India attracting lakhs and lakhs of pilgrims from various parts of the country. Even the presence of such a substance in the Nivedyam offered to the deity will affect the sentiments, faith and belief of the devotees. The Thanthri himself has admittedly, prescribed spiritual remedies. Besides, it is the managing committee of which the Thanthri is also a member, which decided to keep the petitioners under suspension pending enquiry. Even the presence of such a substance in the Nivedyam offered to the deity will affect the sentiments, faith and belief of the devotees. The Thanthri himself has admittedly, prescribed spiritual remedies. Besides, it is the managing committee of which the Thanthri is also a member, which decided to keep the petitioners under suspension pending enquiry. In such a situation, whether the incident happened due to any act of negligence during the preparation of the food item and whether the petitioners are in way liable itself being enquired into and suspension pending such further enquiry, without in any way affecting the right of their families to continue to get all the remuneration and benefits by replacing them by any other members in the family, will in no way can be said to be an action without jurisdiction or excessive. However, we find that when a person is suspended, though it may not cause any stigma as it is not a punishment, since that affects the reputation, such action of suspension of the person should be attributed with utmost caution. But in this case, according to the respondents, only after conducting a preliminary enquiry through its officers and after obtaining explanation from the Santhi Ettavar (supervisor) and after finding a prima facie case to proceed with, that Ext.P1 was issued. In the absence of any other materials to impugn the order of suspension in any way mala fide, the situation does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. But at the same time, such suspension cannot be continued indefinitely and the process of final decision on the enquiry proposed could not be delayed. Petitioners have a case that some observations in the counter affidavit may show that pre-determination of the suspension has been made; but in the course of discussion, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Devaswom submitted that an impartial enquiry will be conducted and a retired District Judge will be appointed to alleviate the fear in the mind of the petitioners and ensure that the enquiry conducted will be impartial and the petitioners will have the full opportunity to defend their case and to prove their innocence. It is also stated that within a maximum of three months period, the whole proceedings will be completed. We record this submission of the standing counsel. The respondents will ensure compliance of the same. It is also stated that within a maximum of three months period, the whole proceedings will be completed. We record this submission of the standing counsel. The respondents will ensure compliance of the same. We may however, make it clear that the allegation as to whether any cigarette butt was found in the Appam, whether the petitioners are in any way responsible for the same are not matters to be examined at this stage and we are not expressing any opinion thereon. In the result, we dismiss the writ petition; but without any order as to costs.

Kodakkattu Cheriya Krishnan Namboothiri v. Guruvayoor Devaswom, Represented By