ORDER : Anil K. Narendran, J. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala has filed this report pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 14.02.2022 in DBP No.2 of 2022 – Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ]. The said DBP was registered by the proceedings dated 31.01.2022, based on a news item that appeared in the Mathrubhumi online edition dated 30.01.2022 alleging huge corruption in the submission of fake food bills at Sabarimala Guest House. As per that news report, top officials are behind disbanding the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The move was spearheaded by those fearing arrest if the fake bills submitted at Sabarimala Guest House and the irregularities in the toilet construction come out. Four officers, including two Sub Inspectors, were removed from the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. That DBP was disposed of by the order dated 14.02.2022. Paragraph 33 of that order reads thus; “33. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the additional 6th respondent, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this DBP with the following directions; (i) As expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of this order, the 2nd respondent shall obtain a list from the State Police Chief, of most efficient and upright Police Officers, from among those who have opted for deputation to the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Based on the recommendation made by the State Police Chief, the 2nd respondent shall issue necessary orders, within a further period of two weeks, posting sufficient number of Police officers on deputation to the Vigilance Wing of the Board. (ii) Immediately on receipt of the request made by the Travancore Devaswom Board for posting a Police officer on deputation as Chief Vigilance Officer in its Vigilance Wing, the 2nd respondent shall obtain the name(s) of most efficient and upright Police officer(s) and thereafter issue necessary orders posting a Police officer as the Chief Vigilance Officer in the Vigilance Wing of the Board, on deputation. (iii) In order to ensure that the post of Chief Vigilance Officer in the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board and also other posts in the Vigilance Wing, which are to be filled up by Police officers on deputation, are not lying vacant, at any point of time, the Travancore Devaswom Board is directed to forward requests to the 2nd respondent for deploying suitable incumbents on deputation, at least three months before the expiry of the term of deputation of the existing incumbents. Based on such request, the 2nd respondent shall obtain a list from the State Police Chief, of most efficient and upright Police officers from among those who have opted for deputation to the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Based on the recommendation made by the State Police Chief, the 2nd respondent shall issue necessary orders posting sufficient number of Police officers on deputation to the Vigilance Wing of the Board and such orders shall be issued before the expiry of the period of deputation of the existing incumbents. (iv) The posting of Chief Vigilance Officer and other Police officers in the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be reported to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board. On the posting of Chief Vigilance Officer in the Vigilance Wing of the Board, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, shall submit a report before this Court. (v) The Chief Vigilance Officer in the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall submit periodical status reports of the cases, once in six months, to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. Such status reports of the Chief Vigilance Officer shall be placed before the Devaswom Bench, along with the report of the Special Commissioner. (vi) Regarding the corruption alleged in the submission of the fake food bills at Sabarimala Guest House and irregularities alleged in the construction of toilets, the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall conduct inquiry and submit report before the Travancore Devaswom Board, within a period of four months, for necessary action. The outcome of such inquiry shall be reported to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, who shall file a report before the Devaswom Bench.” (underline supplied) 2. The outcome of such inquiry shall be reported to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, who shall file a report before the Devaswom Bench.” (underline supplied) 2. In the SSCR, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala has stated that, as directed by this Court the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board conducted an enquiry into the corruption alleged in the submission of fake food bills at Sabarimala Guest House and submitted Annexures I and II reports. Scrutiny of those reports shows that the Guest House functioning in the office complex at Sabarimala has earmarked rooms for the officials. The officials for whom earmarked rooms are given, food and accommodation are free of cost. The staff accompanying the said officials are also provided with food free of cost from the Guest House. State Guests, other dignitaries and guests of the Travancore Devaswom Board visiting Sabarimala are provided accommodation and food free of cost at the Guest House. Vishnu Prakash, a provisional clerk of the Travancore Devaswom Board was holding charge of the Manager of the Guest House. A rough register under the caption Sabarimala Guest House was maintained from 15.11.2021 to 19.01.2022, during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 2021-22. However, the said register is not signed and properly maintained by the officers concerned and certified by the higher authority. The number of guests included in the said register is compiled and 1/3rd of the admissible amount for food per head is claimed as expenses of the season. The per day rate of food is fixed at Rs.58/- per head (inclusive of three meals) at Sabarimala. However, since the guests who stay at the said Guest House usually don't have three meals per day, only 1/3rd of the total amount is allowed to be claimed. The total number of guests who had food at Sabarimala Guest House at the officers' complex from 15.11.2021 to 19.01.2022 was 1398. When the amount at the rate of 1/3rd is claimed, the total admissible amount towards expenses of food is only Rs.22,020.60 [Sic:1/3rd of Rs.58/- x 1398 = 27,023.34/-]. However, due to the controversy, so far, the said amount expended for food at the Guest House is not claimed by the officers concerned, who are responsible to conduct the mess. When the amount at the rate of 1/3rd is claimed, the total admissible amount towards expenses of food is only Rs.22,020.60 [Sic:1/3rd of Rs.58/- x 1398 = 27,023.34/-]. However, due to the controversy, so far, the said amount expended for food at the Guest House is not claimed by the officers concerned, who are responsible to conduct the mess. Karuppuswamy, the District Police Chief, Idukki, who stayed in the Guest House on 30.12.2021, had food from the police mess and he was not served food from the said Guest House. However, it was written in the Guest House register that the said officer had food from the Guest House. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala who had not stayed in the Guest House for the entire period on account of his court sitting as Additional District Judge, Kollam, is also stated to be served food on days in which he had not visited Sabarimala and stayed at the said Guest House. In November and December, 2021 and January, 2022 for the days on which the Special Commissioner had conducted sitting in the court, it is stated in the rough register that he was at the Guest House. Though the Special Commissioner is not at Sabarimala his earmarked room functions as an office and his Secretary Balachandran Pillai, the Devaswom Guard attached to his office, etc., will be present in his office at Sabarimala and they are provided food from the Guest House. It is revealed in the enquiry that Vishnu Prakash, the Guest House Manager, who was responsible for properly maintaining the register, had maintained it in a reckless and irresponsible manner. Therefore, disciplinary action is recommended against him. It is also recommended that a front office with a proper registration system maintained by a person authorised by the Travancore Devaswom Board is essential in the Guest House of Travancore Devaswom Board at the officers' complex, Sabarimala to avoid such instances. 3. Therefore, disciplinary action is recommended against him. It is also recommended that a front office with a proper registration system maintained by a person authorised by the Travancore Devaswom Board is essential in the Guest House of Travancore Devaswom Board at the officers' complex, Sabarimala to avoid such instances. 3. In the SSCR, the Special Commissioner has recommended that (i) The Travancore Devaswom Board may be directed to maintain a proper reception-cum-registration office at the Devaswom Guest House functioning at the officers' complex at Sabarimala; (ii) The details of the officials and guests availing accommodation and food at the Devaswom Guest House at Sabarimala have to be properly and promptly entered in a Register with check-in and check-out timings; (iii) The details and number of the dignitaries and officials and guests have to be provided well in advance of their visit, at least two days before, so as to arrange the food, so that there is no shortage or excess food since food is brought from the Devaswom mess at Sabarimala, as there is no cooking facility at the Guest House; (iv) The Travancore Devaswom Board may consider levying a charge for accommodation and food from guests other than State Guests, constitutional dignitaries and officials for whom earmarked rooms are provided and their staff and officials on duty at Sabarimala Guest House. The Travancore Devaswom Board may also take a decision to exempt any categories of guests from paying for food and accommodation at the said Guest House. 4. On 19.08.2022, when this SSCR came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions on the action taken on Annexure I and Annexure II reports of the Vigilance Wing. The learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from the 2nd respondent. 5. On 27.09.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court a show cause notice dated 16.09.2022 issued by the 4th respondent Devaswom Commissioner to one Clerk, who was appointed in the Devaswom Accounts Office on a temporary basis and on duty as the Manager of the Officers’ Complex-Guest House. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Devaswom Commissioner is awaiting an explanation from the concerned staff, in order to proceed with the matter further. 6. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Devaswom Commissioner is awaiting an explanation from the concerned staff, in order to proceed with the matter further. 6. By the order dated 27.09.2022, the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances. The Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit was suo motu impleaded as the additional 6th respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to file an affidavit on behalf of the additional 6th respondent. 7. A counter affidavit dated 03.02.2023 filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is placed on record, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the initiation of this suo motu proceedings, the 5th respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted Annexure-I and II reports. In the enquiry by the Devaswom Vigilance, it was found that no loss is caused to the Board, there was no corruption as alleged in the newspaper reports and there was a serious lapse on the part of Vishnu Prakash, who was on duty at that time as the Manager of the Officers’ Complex-Guest House, in properly maintaining the register. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Devaswom Commissioner was directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Manager and to introduce a proper front office management system in the guest house. Accordingly, a front office management system was introduced in the Guest House and an employee was posted on duty for managing the front office. A show cause notice was issued to Vishnu Prakash, who submitted a reply. The Board considered the reply submitted by the Manager, along with the report of the Devaswom Commissioner, and found that during the relevant period, the duties in the Officers’ Complex-Guest House and Sabari Guest House were managed by Vishnu Prakash amidst Covid-19 pandemic. He attended the duties without any room for complaints and the practice followed in the guest house that food will be taken from the mess for the guests who are expected in the Officers’ Complex-Guest House. There was no deliberate attempt on the part of the Manager to tarnish the reputation of the Board and there were no previous complaints against him. Hence, vide Annexure R3(a) proceedings No.ROC 1002/22/Vig. There was no deliberate attempt on the part of the Manager to tarnish the reputation of the Board and there were no previous complaints against him. Hence, vide Annexure R3(a) proceedings No.ROC 1002/22/Vig. dated 30.01.2023, the proceedings against Vishnu Prakash were finalised by censuring him, and he is directed to do duties with responsibility, not giving room for any complaints in future. Considering the fact that accommodation in the Administrative Block is provided exclusively for Ministers, State guests, Board President, Members, Devaswom officials, etc., the Board decided not to collect any charge for occupation in this Guest House. At the same time, strict instructions are given to the front office, vide Annexure R3(a) proceedings, to keep a register recording the details of the guests with their time of arrival and to ascertain whether they require food and if required to arrange the same. Now all the Guest Houses at Sannidhanam are functioning properly without giving room for any complaints. 8. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the additional 6th respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 3 to 5 and also the learned Amicus Curiae for Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that, in the enquiry by the Devaswom Vigilance, it was found that no loss is caused to the Board. There was no corruption as alleged in the newspaper reports. However, there was a serious lapse on the part of Vishnu Prakash, who was on duty at that time as the Manager of the Officers’ Complex-Guest House, in properly maintaining the register. Since there was no deliberate attempt on the part of Vishnu Prakash to tarnish the reputation of the Board and there were no previous complaints against him, the proceedings against him were finalised censuring him, and he is directed to do duties without giving room for any complaints in future. Strict instructions are given to the front office, vide Annexure R3(a) proceedings dated 30.01.2023, to keep a register recording the details of the guests and their requirements for food. 10. Strict instructions are given to the front office, vide Annexure R3(a) proceedings dated 30.01.2023, to keep a register recording the details of the guests and their requirements for food. 10. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that Vishnu Prakash, who was appointed in the Devaswom Accounts Office on a temporary basis and on duty as the Manager of the Officers’ Complex-Guest House, maintained a rough register under the caption Sabarimala Guest from 15.11.2021 to 19.01.2022, during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 2021-22. As per the said register, the total number of guests who had food at Sabarimala Guest House at the officers' complex from 15.11.2021 to 19.01.2022 was 1398 and the admissible amount towards expenses of food comes to Rs.22,020.60/- [Sic: Rs.27,023.34/-]. Merely for the reason that the concerned officers have not claimed the amount expended for food at the Guest House due to the controversy, the disciplinary proceedings against Vishnu Prakash cannot be finalised by merely censuring him. Maintaining a rough register in the Guest House during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season and entering the name of the guests in the accommodation register later, for the purpose of statutory audit, is a serious irregularity on the part of Vishnu Prakash. The register was not signed and properly maintained by the concerned officers of the Board and certified by the higher authority. 11. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Sabarimala Devaswom is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the Act, under Chengannur Group, Pathanamthitta Taluk. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. As per Section 16 of the Act, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. As per Section 31 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated, and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 12. In Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 1975 KLT 55 ] a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, under Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. 13. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [ (1979) 2 SCC 65 ], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not, therefore, occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property if at all that was necessary, to the best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs.21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 14. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/ archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 15. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [ (2013) 3 KLT 132 ] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [ (2013) 3 KLT 132 ] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [ (2007) 7 SCC 482 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The Division Bench further noticed that the relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court is the guardian of the deity and apart from the revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. 16. In Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ] this Court held that in view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala Devaswom, which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the said Act, under the Chengannur Group. The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom and conduct daily worships and ceremonies and also festivals in the temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held by this Court in Ram Mohan Das [ 1975 KLT 55 ]. Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. 17. In Suo motu [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ] this Court held that the Travancore Devaswom Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom are duty bound to protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. 17. In Suo motu [ 2022 (2) KHC 411 ] this Court held that the Travancore Devaswom Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom are duty bound to protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees. Any such wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, which are acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 18. A scrutiny of Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board would show that, during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 2021-22, Vishnu Prakash, who was appointed in the Devaswom Accounts Office on a temporary basis, was on duty as the Manager of the Officers’ Complex-Guest House. He maintained a rough register for the period from 15.11.2021 to 19.01.2022 under the caption ‘Sabarimala Guest House’. The said register was not signed and properly maintained by the concerned officer of the Board and verified by the higher authorities. The number of guests included in the register is compiled and 1/3rd of the admissible amount for food per head is claimed as the expense of the season. The rate of food at Sabarimala Guest House for one day was fixed at Rs.58/- per head (inclusive of 3 meals). Since guests who stay at the Guest House do not usually take 3 meals per day, 1/3rd of the total amount was allowed to be claimed. The total number of guests who had food at the said Guest House from 15.11.2021 to 19.01.2022 was 1398. At the admissible rate of 1/3rd of the total amount, the total admissible amount towards the expense of food comes to Rs.22,020.60 (379.67 x Rs.58/-) [Sic:19.33 x 1398=27,023.34/-]. In Annexure II report, it is stated that, in view of the controversy on account of the news reports, the said amount is not claimed as of the date of that report. The enquiry revealed that the rough register was being used for entering the name of the guests. In Annexure II report, it is stated that, in view of the controversy on account of the news reports, the said amount is not claimed as of the date of that report. The enquiry revealed that the rough register was being used for entering the name of the guests. Later, the name of the guests will be entered into the accommodation register, which will be subjected to an audit, and thereafter the bill amount will be written as expenditure for conducting the mess by the contractor. 19. The Guest House functioning in the office complex at Sabarimala has earmarked rooms for the officials. Food and accommodation are free of cost for those officials, who are given earmarked rooms. The staff accompanying those officials are also provided with food free of cost. State Guests, other dignitaries and guests of the Travancore Devaswom Board visiting Sabarimala are also provided with accommodation and food free of cost. On account of the interference made by this Court in DBP No.2 of 2022, which was registered suo motu vide proceedings dated 31.01.2022, based on a news item that appeared in the Mathrubhumi online edition dated 30.01.2022, alleging corruption in the submission of fake food bills at Sabarimala Guest House, the admissible amount of Rs.22,020.60 [Sic: Rs.27,023.34/-] towards expenses of the food at Sabarimala Guest House was not claimed by the officers concerned. 20. As borne out from Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing, Karuppuswamy, the District Police Chief, Idukki, who stayed in the Guest House on 30.12.2021, had food from the police mess. However, as per the rough register maintained by Vishnu Prakash, Karuppuswamy had food at the Guest House. Similarly, as per the rough register, in November and December, 2021 and January, 2022, the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala had food at the Guest House on days on which he had not even visited Sabarimala on account of court sittings in the Additional District Court, Kollam. Though the Special Commissioner was not at Sabarimala, the room earmarked for him functions as his office, in which his Secretary Balachandran Pillai and the Devaswom guard attached to that office will be present, and they are provided with food at the Guest House. In the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Wing, it was revealed that Vishnu Prakash failed to maintain a proper register in the Guest House. In the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Wing, it was revealed that Vishnu Prakash failed to maintain a proper register in the Guest House. Therefore, in the reports of the Vigilance Wing, it was recommended to take action against Vishnu Prakash. Based on Annexures I and II reports, the 5th respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer submitted report No.PTN 08/22/TDB/VIG dated 07.07.2022 before the Board, wherein he has recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Vishnu Prakash. The said recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer has been referred to in paragraph 2 of Annexure R3(a) order dated 30.01.2023. However, based on the recommendation made by the 4th respondent Devaswom Commissioner in his report No.ROC 16995/22/Est.-A dated 11.11.2022 to close the proceedings initiated against Vishnu Prakash giving strict warning, the Board has decided in Annexure R3(a) order to close the proceedings initiated against Vishnu Prakash by censuring him. 21. In view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom. The position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees. The recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in the report dated 07.07.2022 to initiate disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee, which is one made based on Annexures I and II reports of the Vigilance Wing, cannot be brushed aside by the Devaswom Commissioner, who is the disciplinary authority, or by the Board, without stating cogent reasons. The Devaswom Commissioner, while submitting his report before the Board, and the Board, while passing orders based on the recommendation of the Devaswom Commissioner, has to state cogent reasons for brushing aside the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The order passed by the Board should reflect proper application of mind, which has to be manifest from the order itself. 22. The accounts of the Board are subjected to audit annually, as per the requirements of Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, by the auditors appointed by this Court under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act. 22. The accounts of the Board are subjected to audit annually, as per the requirements of Section 32 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, by the auditors appointed by this Court under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act. Maintaining a rough register for the Guest House during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season and entering the name of the guests in the accommodation register later, for the purpose of statutory audit, is a serious irregularity on the part of the employee who was in charge of the Guest House. The statutory audit of the annual accounts of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 is pending on account of the delay on the part of the Board in furnishing the annual accounts, which was the subject matter in DBAR No.4 of 2022, which was disposed of by the order dated 24.05.2022, and DBAR No.8 of 2022, which was disposed of by the order dated 13.04.2023. It is for the additional 6th respondent Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit to take note of the above aspects while conducting the statutory audit of the accounts of Sabarimala Devaswom for the year 1197 ME (2021-22). 23. In the above circumstances, this SSCR is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the 5th respondent Chief Vigilance and Security Officer in his report No.PTN 08/22/TDB/VIG dated 07.07.2022, taking note of the law laid down hereinbefore at paragraph 21, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision taken by the Board shall be reported to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, who shall file a report before this Court, which shall be numbered as SSCR and placed before the Devaswom Bench.