ANDM.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2006 AND 1 AND 1 OF 2007 v. Rethinakumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.07.2007 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMC.R.P.NPD.NOS.1804 OF 2006 AND 236 OF 2007ANDM.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2006 AND 1 AND 1 OF 2007SenthilvelSecretary,AVC Education Committee,AVC College,Manampandal,Mayiladuthurai.. Petitioner in CRP.NPD.1804 of 2006Rethinakumar.. Petitioner in CRP.NPD.236 of 2007Vs.Rethinakumar.. Respondent in CRP.NPD.1804 of 2006Senthilvel.. Respondent in CRP.NPD.236 of 2007 These civil revision petitions have been preferred under Article 227of the Constitution of India against the orders of the learned SchemeJudge (Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai), dated 1.11.2006passed in E.A.No.16 of 2006 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.234of 1994. For Petitioner : Mr.Rajah in CRP.NPD.No.1804 of 2006 Mr.M.Balasubramanianin CRP.NPD.No.236 of 2007For Respondent : Mr.M.Balasubramanianin CRP.NPD.No.1804 of 2006 Mr.Rajah in CRP.NPD.No.236 of 2007COMMON ORDERThis order shall govern the above two civil revision petitions.2.These two civil revision petitions are directed against the ordermade by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, theScheme Court made in E.A.No.16 of 2006 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended inO.S.No.234 of 1994. One at the instance of the respondent therein and thelater at the instance of the petitioner therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The said application in E.A.No.16 of 2006 was filed by thepetitioner in C.R.P.No.236 of 2007. The short facts necessary for thedisposal of these civil revision petitions can be stated thus: a)Anbanathapuram Vagaiyara Charities is a public charitable trust atMayiladuthurai and is administering several educational institutions. Ascheme decree came to be passed by the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthuraiin O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.234 of 1994. The actualadministration of the educational institutions, three in number, wasconducted by the Educational committee under the scheme framed by the saidcourt. The rules of the management of the said educational committee wasalso framed and thus, the said rules, which are approved by the said courtin O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.234 of 1994, are in force. b)The two committees, one educational committee and the other collegecommittee, are independent and having its members and were functioning.The petitioner in CRP No.236 of 2007 was convicted and sentenced toundergo 6 months imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- on eachcount under Sections 408 and 477 IPC by the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.1, Mayiladuthurai on 25.9.2006. An appeal was preferred by thepetitioner, which is pending on the file of the learned District Judge,Nagapattinam. Pending appeal, the application was filed for suspension ofthe execution of sentence and it has been ordered. c)While the matter stood thus, the petitioner in CRP No.1804 of 2006sent a note through circulation to the educational committee members on14.10.2006, stating that the conviction and sentence imposed on thepetitioner in CRP No.236 of 2007 would disqualify him from being a memberof both the educational committee and college committee, since the offenceinvolved moral turpitude as set out under Section 8(6)(c) of the TamilNadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and has requested the members toexpress their views why the respondent should not be suspended till thedisposal of the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued tothe petitioner in CRP No.236 of 2007 on 16.10.2006, calling forexplanation from him. The show cause notice was served on him on17.10.2006 and the petitioner in CRP No.236 of 2007 gave a reply on23.10.2006. Following the same, he was suspended in view of the allegeddisqualification. On the service of the said suspension order, thepetitioner in CRP No.236 of 2007 filed E.A.No.16 of 2006 before the Schemecourt. The scheme court took it on file, served notice on the respondentand gave an opportunity of being heard to both sides. After hearing bothsides, it has finally passed an order that the suspension of thepetitioner therein in respect of his membership in the educationalcommittee was bad and he could continue as the member of the educationalcommittee and so far as the suspension in the college committee wasconcerned, it was correct and therefore, he could not continue. d)After passing the order, the petitioner in the said E.A.No.16 of2006, aggrieved over that part of the order against him, has brought forthC.R.P.No.236 of 2007, while the respondent therein has brought forthC.R.P.No.1804 of 2006, challenging that part of the order, which was infavour of the petitioner. Hence, these two civil revision petitions havearisen before this court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The court heard the learned counsel on either side. Concedingly,there are two independent committees, one is the educational committee andthe other is the college committee. In both the committees, thepetitioner in CRP No.236 of 2007, one Rethinakumar, was the member duringthe relevant time. From the submissions made and from the materialsavailable, it would be quite evident that on the accusations made in thecourt of criminal law, he was found guilty under Sections 408 and 477 IPCby the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mayiladuthurai by judgment dated25.09.2006 and the said judgment is the subject matter of appeal beforethe District Court, Nagapattinam. The execution of suspension imposed onhim is also kept under suspension. While the matter stood thus,educational committee has issued show cause notice to him that there wasdisqualification by the said conviction and sentence and hence, why heshould not be removed. He also gave a reply. Pending the same, he wassuspended from the membership of both the educational committee andcollege committee. Challenging the same, he filed the said executionapplication. After hearing both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge,Mayiladuthurai, the Scheme Court, has passed the impugned order. 5.After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and after lookinginto the order, the court is of the considered opinion that in the instantcase what has been initiated is only the show cause notice has been servedon him and he has given an explanation also and hence, an enquiry has gotto be conducted. In the meanwhile, he has been suspended. Needless to say,suspension is neither a penalty nor punishment. It is further to bepointed out that merely because there is suspension, no question ofchallenging the same before the court would arise at that stage on thatground. A regular enquiry has to be conducted and till that time, theparties could wait. But, instead of issuing such a direction, the lowercourt has passed an elaborate order, discussing both factual and legalpositions. The court is of the considered opinion that it was not at allwarranted. Apart from that, the contention put forth by the counsel thatshow cause notice could not be issued cannot be countenanced in law. Ascould be seen, the educational committee has got power to proceed with theenquiry and to initiate proceedings and it has got powers to issue showcause notice, which has been done. Hence, the same cannot be questioned.At this juncture, even the suspension order, since it is not a penalty orpunishment, need not be disturbed. 6.At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of the court that theinter se members of the educational committee are also litigating beforethe court in respect of their positions and under these circumstances, itwould be very difficult for the present committee to proceed with theenquiry. Hence, both the counsel would submit that an independent agencycould be constituted for conducting enquiry. Under these circumstances, itwould be fit and proper to issue a direction to the enquiry agency toconduct enquiry over the matter and complete the same within a period ofthree months from this day. The parties are also present in court and theyare directed to co-operate with that agency to complete the enquiry withina period of three months. This court is of the considered opinion that aretired Judge of this court could be appointed for conducting enquiry.Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniamis appointed forthe said purpose and the remuneration is fixed at Rs.75,000/-, which shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be paid by the Trust. The other expenses to be incurred by the Hon'bleJudge in connection with the enquiry shall be borne by the Trust.7.The order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in the E.A. isset aside and the original status quo at the time of show cause notice andthe suspension is to be maintained till the completion of the enquiry..Both the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, connected MPs are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvvkToThe Principal Subordinate Judge,Mayiladuthurai. 2. The Honourable Mr.Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam,Judge (Retd.,) High Court, Madras,47, Bulla Avenue,Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 80.2 cc To Mr.M.Balasubramanian, Advocate, SR.43681.1 cc To Mr.Rajah, Advocate, SR.43632. C.R.P.NPD.NOS.1804 OF 2006AND 236 OF 2007SSV(CO)RVL 30.07.2007