JUDGMENT : RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. 1. The petitioner, Sri. Ajaykumar E.K., states that he entered service as a Devaswom Assistant/Lower Division Clerk in Chottanikkara Devaswom, under the 1st respondent, on 06.11.1996. He states that he was promoted and posted as Devaswom Officer at Chottanikkara Devaswom on 01.04.2002. In June 2006, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Devaswom Officer at Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. According to him, on 11.07.2017, he handed over charge as Devaswom Officer of Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple upon being transferred to Chottanikkara Devaswom as Accommodation Manager. He continued to serve as Accommodation Manager under Chottanikkara Devaswom until his retirement on 28.02.2025. 2. The dispute in this Writ Petition centres around certain events that occurred when the petitioner assumed charge as Devaswom Officer of Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple in the year 2006. According to him, at the time of taking charge, the valuable articles kept in the "Kallara" of the Temple were in the joint custody of the Assistant Commissioner, the Devaswom Officer, the Moothathu, and the Menokki. The petitioner contends that he had no occasion to understand or evaluate the nature of the articles. He was handed over only the keys by the then Devaswom Officer, including the keys of the "Kallara". He asserts that no physical verification of the articles kept in the "Kallara" was carried out. Further, no endorsements were made in the Pandam Pathram Register (hereinafter referred to as the "P.P. Register") with respect to the articles under the joint custody of the Assistant Commissioner, Devaswom Officer, Moothathu, and Menokki. 3. The petitioner states that, upon assuming charge as Devaswom Officer, he realised that the P.P. Register (now renamed as the "Valuable Register") and the Major Eradavu Register (hereinafter referred to as the "M.E. Register") maintained in the Temple were not being properly maintained. According to him, this fact was brought to the notice of the 4th respondent and the 1st respondent through Ext.P1. He requested that the anomalies in the said Registers be rectified within one week of his taking charge. The petitioner further states that the 1st respondent authorised the Pandam Pathram Special Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "PPSO"), who is presently arrayed as the Assistant Commissioner (Valuables), to conduct an inspection regarding the charge and the anomalies highlighted by the petitioner in the various Registers and to submit a report. The petitioner further states that the 1st respondent authorised the Pandam Pathram Special Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "PPSO"), who is presently arrayed as the Assistant Commissioner (Valuables), to conduct an inspection regarding the charge and the anomalies highlighted by the petitioner in the various Registers and to submit a report. However, according to him, no inspection was conducted by the 3rd respondent, and consequently, the anomalies remained uncorrected. 4. The petitioner asserts that a Test Audit of the Receipt Accounts of the Tripunithura Devaswom for the year 2005–06 was conducted. The Audit Party found that charge of the articles had not been handed over to the petitioner. This is evident from Ext.P3. 5. Subsequently, it w as detected that the Makudam (Coronet) of the Gold Kolam was not original. This led to agitation by a section of devotees, and in the said circumstances, the then PPSO conducted an inspection of the articles in the Temple. The inspection revealed that certain articles had suffered a loss in weight and that some items were missing. Thereafter, an order was passed by the 3rd respondent fixing liability upon the petitioner. The petitioner states that he was constrained to remit various amounts, as evidenced by Ext.P5. The total amount so remitted was Rs. 33,884.85. 6. Following the said remittance, the 2nd respondent issued an order directing an inspection of the P.P. Register maintained in the Tripunithura Devaswom. According t o the petitioner, by Ext.P6 order, he was exonerated from liability in respect of the missing articles. However, on the very same day, instead of rectifying the anomalies in the Registers, the 2nd respondent issued another order fixing liability in respect of the missing articles reflected in the P.P. Register. A copy of the said order has been produced as Ext.P7. In Ext.P7, the 2nd respondent concluded that the Devaswom Officer was solely responsible for the missing articles recorded in the M.E. Register. 7. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order was issued fixing liability in respect of the missing articles upon the joint custodians, namely, the Assistant Commissioner, the Devaswom Officer, the Moothathu, and the Menokki. Upon receipt of Ext.P8, the petitioner submitted a d etailed explanation, produced as Ext.P9. He also produced extracts of the relevant pages of the P.P. Register, marked as Ext.P9(a). 8. 7. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order was issued fixing liability in respect of the missing articles upon the joint custodians, namely, the Assistant Commissioner, the Devaswom Officer, the Moothathu, and the Menokki. Upon receipt of Ext.P8, the petitioner submitted a d etailed explanation, produced as Ext.P9. He also produced extracts of the relevant pages of the P.P. Register, marked as Ext.P9(a). 8. According to the petitioner, a perusal of Exts.P9 and P9(a) would reveal that the three keys of the Kallara Bhandaram were in the custody of the Pattamali, the Moothathu, and the Assistant Commissioner until 2002. The records would further reveal that only the keys were handed over, without any verification of the articles kept in the K allara. The petitioner, therefore, contends that he cannot be treated as the custodian of the articles held in joint custody, nor can he be regarded as the custodian of the P.P. Register insofar as those articles are concerned. 9. The petitioner further states that, during the pendency of the matter, this Court passed Ext.P10 order directing that the petitioner, who was then serving as the Temple Devaswom Officer, and the Assistant Engineer should not be entrusted with any other official duties or transferred until the renovation work of the Sreekovil of Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple was completed. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was permitted only to supervise the renovation work of the Sreekovil. 10. The petitioner states that thereafter, without affording him an opportunity to substantiate his contentions and without properly considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P14 order dated 26.12.2014, fixing a liability of Rs. 28,650/- upon the four joint custodians and directing each of them to remit one-fourth of the said amount. Upon receipt of Ext.P14, the petitioner submitted Ext.P15 explanation. 11. Challenging Ext.P14 to the extent that it fixed liability upon him, and seeking exoneration from liability in respect of the missing articles which, according to him, had never been taken charge of by him, as well as refund of the sum of Rs. 33,884.85 remitted under Ext.P5 receipts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25371 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P32 judgment. 33,884.85 remitted under Ext.P5 receipts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25371 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P32 judgment. In Ext.P32 judgment, this Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside Ext.P14 order dated 26.12.2014 and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after affording the petitioner and other affected parties an opportunity to put forward their respective contentions on merits. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of filing the Writ Petition, this Court had passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,163/- by way of Fixed Deposit, subject to a lien in favour of the Cochin Devaswom Board. 12. Pursuant to the directions issued in Ext.P32 judgment, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation seeking exoneration from liability. However, the 2nd respondent disposed of the representation by issuing Ext.P34 order without properly considering the contentions raised therein. 13. Smt. K.R. Krishnakumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that Ext.P34 order, insofar as it declines to exonerate the petitioner from liability, is legally unsustainable. The learned counsel submits that this Court, while rendering Ext.P32 judgment, had specifically directed the 2nd respondent to decide the matter after affording the petitioner and the other affected parties an opportunity to advance their contentions on merits. According to her, the parties ought to have been heard together and not separately. In the present case, all the affected parties were not heard together. She further submits, with reference to Ext.P9(a), the relevant pages of the P.P. Register, and the Test Audit Report, that the records do not indicate that the petitioner had physically verified the contents of the "Kallara" at the time of taking charge. If that be so, no liability could have been fastened upon him. The learned counsel further submits that Exts.P21 and P25, the implications of which were not considered by the 2nd respondent, assume significance since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the Registers were not being properly maintained. 14. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, as evidenced by Ext.P5 receipts, the petitioner had accepted liability and remitted a sum of Rs. 33,884.85 as early as 2015. It was further submitted that the records maintained in the Temple reveal that the loss sustained was approximately Rs. 14. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, as evidenced by Ext.P5 receipts, the petitioner had accepted liability and remitted a sum of Rs. 33,884.85 as early as 2015. It was further submitted that the records maintained in the Temple reveal that the loss sustained was approximately Rs. 28,000/- and the said loss was apportioned equally among the persons responsible. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his share of liability was Rs. 7,163/-, which was deposited pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in 2015. According to the l earned Standing Counsel, none of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner merit acceptance. 15. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and records placed before us. 16. The dispute essentially concerns the disappearance of certain valuable articles belonging to Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple and the consequential fixation of liability. As fairly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in an earlier and substantially similar proceeding, liability to the tune of approximately Rs. 33,000/- had been fastened upon the petitioner, and the said amount was subsequently remitted by him. In the present proceedings, the challenge is directed against the fixation of liability in respect of certain articles alleged to have been lost from the Temple and the "Kallara". 17. The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that, although he had assumed charge as Devaswom Officer, no physical verification or appraisal of the articles kept in the "Kallara" was conducted at the time of taking over charge and, therefore, no liability could legally be imposed upon him for any subsequent shortage or loss detected in respect of those articles. The petitioner would further contend that the anomalies in the Registers had been brought to the notice of the authorities at the earliest point of time and that such circumstances ought to have resulted in his complete exoneration. The petitioner has also asserted that instead of hearing all the officers together, they were heard separately, and the same is not due compliance of the directions in the judgment. 18. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. A Devaswom Officer occupies a position of trust and responsibility in the administration of temple affairs. The petitioner has also asserted that instead of hearing all the officers together, they were heard separately, and the same is not due compliance of the directions in the judgment. 18. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. A Devaswom Officer occupies a position of trust and responsibility in the administration of temple affairs. When an officer assumes charge, it is incumbent upon him to ensure that the valuables, records, and properties entrusted to his custody are duly verified and accounted for in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The fact that the petitioner had submitted complaints regarding certain irregularities in the maintenance of the Registers cannot, by itself, absolve him of the responsibilities attached to the office held by him. 19. A careful reading of the impugned order reveals that the competent authority has adverted to all the relevant contentions raised by the petitioner, including the alleged absence of physical verification at the time of taking charge, the deficiencies pointed out in the Registers, and the circumstances under which the liability came to be fixed. The order further discloses that the exercise was undertaken pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and after affording an opportunity to the affected parties. We do not find any material to conclude that the decision-making process suffered from arbitrariness, perversity, procedural impropriety, or violation of the principles of natural justice. 20. It is well settled that, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , this Court does not sit in appeal over factual findings rendered by the competent authority. Interference is warranted only when the impugned decision is shown to be vitiated by illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness, or patent perversity. Upon an overall consideration of the materials on record, we are unable to hold that the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent suffer from any such infirmity warranting interference in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no legal or jurisdictional error in the impugned proceedings. We are therefore of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.