Madras High Court
C.Ramesh Kumar vs The District Educational Officer on 5 January, 2016
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.01.2016
(Reserved on : 14.10.2015)
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.(MD)Nos.3124 of 2015
8381 and 8490 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2, 2, 2 of 2015
in W.P.(MD)Nos.3124, 8381 and 8490 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.3 and 3 of 2015
in W.P.(MD)Nos.8381 and 8490 of 2015
W.P.(MD)No.3124 of 2015
C.Ramesh Kumar .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Secretary,
Mr.E.D.Charles,
Executive Committee,
Tamil Evangelical Luthern Church,
Post Box No.86,
Tranquebar House,
Trichy ? 620 001. ..
Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.8381 of 2015
M.Yogananth ..
Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai District, Madurai.
2.E.D.Charles
3.Ruban Vasanthakumar ..
Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.8490 of 2015
M.Yoganananth ..
Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
Madurai District, Madurai.
2.E.D.Charles ..
Respondents
Writ Petition No.3124 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records
on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned replacement
order of Correspondent vide his EC Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 and
quash the same.
Writ Petition No.8381 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records
on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order of
cancellation of Correspondentship vide his Proceedings dated 17.2.2015
extracted from the EC Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 and quash the same
as illegal and ultra vires.
Writ Petition No.8490 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records
on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order of
cancellation of Correspondentship vide his Proceedings dated 17.2.2015
extracted from the EC Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 and quash the same
as illegal and ultra vires.
!For petitioner in
W.P.No.3124 of 2015 : Mr.D.Selvam
for Mr.D.Selvanayagam
For petitioner in
W.P.Nos.8381 and 8490
of 2015 : Mr.R.Singaravelan
for Mr.B.Saravanan
^For 2nd respondent in
all the above WPs and
red respondent in W.P.
No.8381 of 2015 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
For first respondent
in all the above WPs : Mr.T.S.Md.Mohideen
Additional Government
Pleader
:COMMON ORDER
These three Writ Petitions are taken up together with the consent of parties for disposal by this common order since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are identical.
2. Writ Petition No.3124 of 2015 has been filed by one C.Ramesh Kumar seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the records pertaining to the impugned replacement order of Correspondent passed vide EC Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 on the file of the second respondent. Similarly, Writ Petition Nos.8381 and 8490 of 2015 have been filed by one M.Yogananth seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order of cancellation of Correspondentship passed vide proceedings dated 17.2.2015 extracted from the EC Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 on the file of the second respondent.
W.P.No.3124 of 20153. Mr.D.Selavam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.3124 of 2015, challenging the impugned order replacing the petitioner from the post of Correspondent by the second respondent vide his Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 15.2.1993 by the Correspondent, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (hereinafter referred to as ?TELC?) Middle School, Aranthangi and transferred to various Schools. Later on, he was promoted as Headmaster on 10.12.2001 by the Correspondent, which was approved by the District Elementary Educational Officer. While so, he was working in TELC Primary Schol, Ponnagaram, Madurai. Right from the date of his appointment in the School, he had been rendering meritorious service without giving any room for any complaint. Therefore, he was again appointed as Correspondent by the second respondent for the TELC Jeyaraj Annapackiam High School, Ponnagaram, Madurai vide his Proceedings in C.C.No.1226 dated 06th and 7th August, 2012, with effect from 01.06.2012 and to continue until further orders, which was also approved by the first respondent/District Educational Officer, Madurai District. Thereafter, his tenure of Correspondent was extended from 1.6.2014 until further order by virtue of the proceedings of the second respondent/Secretary, Executive Committee of the Tamil Evangelical Luthern Church, Trichy, in E.C.No.1243 dated 28.04.2014, hence he has been discharging his duties efficiently and effectively without any adverse remarks, and without compromising to his duty in the post of Headmaster.
4. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the election for the Church Council Members was held and the same was held to be void by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8458 of 2014 dated 4.9.2014. Consequently, the functioning of the Church Council and the creation of various Boards like education, appointment etc., became void. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.18820 of 2014 for a mandamus forbearing the District Registrar of Societies from interfering with the administration of TELC as well as acknowledging the officiating position of the Respondents 2 to 10 therein based on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. After coming to know that the petitioner had filed such Writ Petition, the Church Council Members i.e. the Secretary and others threatened him for all types of actions and compelled him to withdraw the same. In view of the pressure mounted on the petitioner, he withdrew the Writ Petition on 03.12.2014. In the mean while, without any notice, his Correspondentship in TELC Jeyaraj Annpackiam High School was replaced by P.Kesavan vide the impugned order of the 2nd respondent.
5. Adding further the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the second respondent had instigated the Educational Board Chairman to place the petitioner under suspension, suspension order was passed against the petitioner in Ref.No.170/2015 dated 10.2.2015 which has been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2601 of 2015. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Correspondent on 06.08.2012 and re-appointed with effect from 01.06.2014 until further orders. By virtue of specific Rule 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974, the term of the Secretary being for a period of 3 years and if any change has to be done, it can only be done with the prior permission of the District Educational Officer/first respondent. Since in the present case, no such approval has been obtained, removal of the petitioner from the post of Correspondentship is illegal and in violation of the above Rule 13(2) of the Rules. The second respondent has passed the impugned order with mala fide intention, however, till now the impugned order has not been served on him, therefore, the act of the second respondent is clothed with mala fide and vindictive act, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the Writ Petition as prayed for.
6. Concluding his argument, the learned counsel would submit that as per Sub-clause 23 of Rule 125 of the Tamil Nadu Evangelical Luthern Church Rules 1991, it is the function of the Church Council to appoint the members of the Education Board and of the Boards of Collegiate Education and the local members of the Managing Committees of the High, Higher and Training Schools. Therefore, it is the Church Council which alone is empowered to appoint or remove the agents or employees or members of the Managing Committee of the schools. Similarly, Rule 123(b) of the Tamil Nadu Evangelical Luthern Church Rules 1991, states that it is one of the functions of Church Council to consider inter district transfer of employees. Therefore, it is the Church Council, which alone can take action and not the Executive committee for the simple reason that it is not even mentioned in any of the rules that the Executive Committee can do so, hence, the order of removal of the petitioner on the basis of Executive Committee is legally not sustainable and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. No notice nor an opportunity was given to the petitioner before removing him from the post of Correspondent, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, he pleaded.
7. Mr.T.S.Md.Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent in all the Writ Petitions would submit that the first respondent in W.P.No.8381 of 2015, namely, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai District, has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments of the petitioner in all the Writ Petitions. Adding further, he would submit that there are many litigations in the administration of TELC and the same are pending consideration. Insofar as the change of Correspondentship is concerned, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer has received a communication for change of Correspondentship. The dispute raised in the present Writ Petitions are purely a private one and within the TELC administration that have to be settled by themselves. Since the first respondent has been impleaded as the formal party, any order that is going to be passed will be abided and implemented by the first respondent in the Writ Petitions.
8. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent denying the averments of the petitioner. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent urged this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition as the same is fully devoid of any merits and further submitted that the Committee appointed the petitioner as Correspondent of TELC Jeyaraj Annpackiam High School at Ponnagaram, Madurai vide proceedings in C.C.No.1226 dated 06 & 07.08.2012. Subsequently, his Correspondentship was extended further by the Executive Committee proceedings No.1243 dated 28.4.2014 until further orders. Since he was already working as Headmaster of TELC Primary School, Ponnagaram, Madurai, to reduce his burden, the Executive Committee resolved to remove him from the Correspondentship and as such, one P.Kesavan was appointed as Correspondent of TELC Jeyaraj Annapackiam High School, Madurai vide EC Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014. One Manthiri Rajkumar instituted a suit in O.S.No.181 of 2014 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli seeking to restrain the Executive Committee members from officiating in their position as Executive Committee of TELC and obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.372 of 2014 restraining the respondents therein from acting as the Executive Committee members. Hence, no action could be taken against the petitioner. On the strength of the interim order, the petitioner continued as Correspondent of the School. However, subsequently, the interim order was vacated.
9. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel would further submit that, on 4.11.2014, the petitioner along with few others attacked the members of TELC and damaged TELC vehicles at TELC office, Tharangaivasam, Trichy and an FIR was registered against him at Palakarai Police Station, Trichy in Crime No.788 of 2014 dated 4.11.2014 under sections 147, 148, 294, 352, 352 and 506(ii) of the IPC r/w section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. Consequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody and later, he was enlarged on bail. Again, on 06.02.2015, the petitioner along with a few others attacked physically the Treasurer of TELC, I.E.P.Gnanaraj and a member of the TELC Mr.Iprampaul. Therefore, Palakrai Police Station, Trichy registered a FIR in Crime No.79 of 2015, against him and later, the petitioner was enlarged on bail.
10. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel, would further add that, in these circumstances, the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 9.2.2015 suspended him from the post of Headmaster of TELC Primary School, Ponnagaram, Madurai in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him for the above activities. In view of the said EC proceedings, the second respondent issued proceedings in Ref.No.170 of 2015 dated 10.2.2015 suspending him from the post of Headmaster of TELC Primary School, Ponnagaram, Madurai.
11. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel would further add that as the petitioner has invited disciplinary action for his grave misconduct, the Executive Committee HAS removed him from the proceedings vide EC Proceedings No.1252 dated 2.3.2015 and P.Kesavan was appointed as Correspondent of the School w.e.f. 4.3.2015 and the District Educational Officer, Madurai also registered the appointment of P.Kesavan as Correspondent of TELC Jeyaraj Annapackiam High School, Ponnagram, Madurai vide proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1357/A5/2015 dated 13.07.2015. Therefore, as pleaded by the petitioner in his Writ Petition he was not removed from the Correspondentship of the school based on the EC Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 but he was removed from the Correspondentship alone based on the subsequent EC proceedings dated 2.3.2015 as he was involved in several criminal activities mentioned above and two criminal complaints were registered against him. Suppressing the above facts, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition as though he was removed from the Correspondentship based on the EC Proceedings dated 28.10.2014, on these basis, the learned counsel for the second respondent prayed for dismissal of these petitions as bereft of any merit.
12. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
13. The petitioner has come before this Court challenging the impugned proceedings appointing P.Kesavan, as the Correspondent in his place on the basis of registration of two FIRs registered by Palakarai Police Station, Trichy in Crime No.788 of 2014 dated 4.11.2014 and Crime No.79 of 2015 against the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner along with a few others attacked the members of TELC and damaged TELC Vehicles at TELC Office, Tharangaivasam, Trichy on 4.11.2014 and therefore, an FIR was registered in Crime No.788 of 2014 dated 4.11.2014 under section 147, 148, 294, 352 and 506(ii) of the IPC r/w Section3 of TNPPOL Act. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody and later, he was enlarged on bail. Knowing that the Executive Committee was going to take action for the above activities against the petitioner, again, the petitioner along with a few others allegedly attacked physically the Treasurer of TELC, I.E.P.Gnanraj and a member of the TELC Iprampaul. On the basis of a complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.79 of 2015 by Palakrai Police Station, Tricy against the petitioner. He was arrested and subsequently, enlarged on bail. In view of the above criminal cases registered against the petitioner, and on the basis of the Executive Committee's resolution, the second respondent vide proceedings in Ref.No.170/2015 dated 10.2.2015 suspended petitioner from the post of Headmaster of TELC Primary School, Ponnagaram, Madurai. Writ Petition No.2601 of 2015 filed challenging the above suspension proceedings was allowed. Thereafter, pursuant to the resolution taken in the Executive Committee meeting held on 2.3.2015, he was removed from Correspondentship of the School vide EC Proceedings No.1252 dated 2.3.2015 and P.Kesavan was appointed as Correspondent of the School w.e.f.4.3.2015. The District Educational Officer, Madurai also registered the appointment of P.Kesavan as Correspondent of TELC Jeyaraj Annapackiam High School, Ponnagaram, Madurai vide proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1357/A5/2015 dated 13.7.2015. These facts have been completely suppressed by the petitioner in his Writ Petition.
14. Since the petitioner has deliberately and wantonly suppressed the material facts as mentioned above, this Court is of the considered opinion that he does not deserve any indulgence from this Court. Therefore, Writ Petition No.3124 of 2015 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.
W.P.Nos.8381 and 8490 of 2015
15. The other two Writ Petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.8381 and 8490 of 2015 have been filed by one M.Yogananth for the relief stated above.
16. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the above two Writ Petitions, assailing the impugned order dated 17.2.105 extracted from the EC proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 removing the petitioner from the post of Correspondent of TELC Middle School, Peraiyur Road, Usilampatti and appointing M.Ruban Vasanthakumar in his place, would submit that when the petitioner was appointed by the second respondent during his earlier tenure as Correspondent for TELC Middle school, Peraiyur Road, Usilampatti vide the Church Council Proceedings in C.C.No.1215 dated 23.9.2010, which was acknowledged by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 11.3.2011, he was allowed to continue until further orders by the Administrator Justice J.Kanakaraj, appointed by this Court in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010 dated 14.12.2010, hence, the impugned order of removing the petitioner from Correspondenship is not valid in law.
17. The learned counsel would further add that as such, when the petitioner was serving as Correspondent, due to strained relationship among its members, some of the members who wanted to grab the properties started to act against the interest of the TELC and some of them also filed suits before various forums. In this background, the second respondent mooted for election by following the Tamil Nadu Societies Act and by virtue of it, 9 members including the petitioner were elected. In view of various litigations, an issue was raised whether the Tamil Nadu Societies Act was applicable to the TELC. Actually, The TELC Institution was governed by its own Church Rules for the election of the Church Council members as well as the Bishop who is the President of the Church Council. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 4.9.2104 in Civil Appeal No.8458 of 2014 filed against the order passed in W.A.No.481 of 2011, held that the Tamil Nadu Societies Act would not be applicable to the TELC. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the election conducted for the period from 2013 ? 2016 became null and void and the persons elected including the petitioner has no locus standi to officiate in the elected post. However, without any notice or opportunity given to the petitioner, the petitioner's Correspondentship was cancelled.
18. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as false case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.79 of 2015 dated 7.2.2015, the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent is not valid in law. Adding further the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ruban Vasanthakumar is the junior most Secondary Grade Teacher and if he is allowed to officiate as Correspondent, overlooking the senior Teachers and Headmaster, it will send a wrong message. Therefore, the impugned order passed without giving any notice or opportunity, is liable to be set aside.
19. Continuing his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per sub clause 33 of Rule 125, it is the function of the Church Council to appoint the members of the Education Board and of the Boards of the Collegiate Education and the local members of the Managing Committees of the High, Higher and Training Schools. The order of removal was not even supported by the Executive Committee resolution which is signed only on 23.3.2015 and the order of removal is dated 17.2.2015. Therefore, the Church Council alone is empowered to appoint or remove employees or members of the Managing Committee of the Schools. But, in the present case, the second respondent on the basis of the proceedings dated 17.2.2015 extracted from the EC Proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014, cancelled the Correspondentship of the petitioner. Arguing further, he would submit that when only the Church Council is competent to remove employees or members of the committee of the School, the Secretary of the Executive Committee/the second respondent has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. That apart, E.D.Charles, the Secretary of Executive Committee/second respondent ought not to have taken part in any proceedings relating to the removal of the petitioner when he himself wanted to be appointed in the place of the petitioner, which would prove his mala fide attitude for his personal interest. While the second respondent was appointed as Correspondent in TELC Girls Higher Secondary School, Usilampatti, the third respondent has been appointed as Correspondent of TELC Middle School, Usilampatti.
20. Adding further, Mr.R.Singaravelan, submitted that Rooban Vasanthakumar who was appointed in the place of the petitioner in respect of TELC Middle School at Usilampatti is clearly associated with E.D.Chargles/second respondent and it is his maternal uncle who has purchased the play ground as specifically averred by the petitioner in his reply affidavit dated 11.6.2015 at para 6 of the said reply affidavit. Moreover, the Property Officer, TELC, Trichy, has sold away the play ground in favour of Ruban Vasantha Kumar's maternal uncle and the property officer is none other than the person who was appointed by the Church Council and authorised by the said E.D.Chargles, who appointed himself as correspondent of TELC Girls Higher Secondary School in the place of the petitioner. The order of Dr.E.D.Charles dated 12.4.2013 ordering for the sale of almost all the Church properties including the recent false transaction of a property in Virudhunagar in Sale Deed dated 18.9.2015 is liable to be enquired into properly. It is the Church Council at the instance of Dr.E.D.Charles has authorised the sale of Church properties in various places including the play ground as evidenced from S.No.5 of the statement of the properties to be disposed of mentioned in his order dated 12.4.2013.
21. Concluding his argument, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the above two Writ Petitions would submit that it is manifestly clear that the real culprits are Dr.E.D.Charles and Ruban Vasanthakumar whose maternal uncle purchased the play ground as evidenced from the documents filed by the respondents themselves and the petitioner was only a witness to the sale deed. He signed as a witness because he was holding the post of Correspondentship and the properties were directed to be sold by E.D.Charless. Therefore, removing the petitioner from the post of Correspondentship only on the basis of alleged FIR registered against the petitioner is uncalled for.
22. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents in the above two Writ Petitions would submit that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable either on law or on facts and pleaded for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. The writ petitioner has suppressed the material facts before this Court. Adding further, the learned counsel would submit that election for the present triennium, namely, 2013-2016 was held on 2.5.2013 and the petitioner M.Yogananth was elected as one of the members of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is the authority competent to nominate the Correspondents to the various educational institutions on behalf of the TELC. As the petitioner was earlier nominated as the Correspondent of the TELC Girls Higher Secondary School at Usilampatti and the TELC Middle School, Peraiyur Road, Usilampatti, w.e.f. 01.06.2012, the said nomination was registered by the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti vide proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3867/A3/2012 dated 10.08.2012 and by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai, vide proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1233/Aa3/2011 dated 11.3.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from the Correspondentship of the School vide EC Proceedings No.1241 as he was found to have involved along with a few others in various fraudulent activities including unauthorised alienation of Church properties.
23. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would further submit that the petitioner had leased out a House belonging to the Church at Survey No.342B/147 in Usilampatti Village Madurai District, in favour of his wife Tmt.Suganthi Yoganath for a period of 99 years. Apart from that, he has also sold away various Church properties by using forged documents including a play ground of the TELC Girls Higher Secondary School, Usilampatti at Survey Nos.226 and 238 in Usilampatti Village while he was serving as Correspondent. Therefore, the executive committee has resolved to take action for the aforesaid misdeeds. In view thereof, the Executive Committee nominated the second respondent as Correspondent of the TELC Girls Higher Secondary School, Usilampatti. Pursuant to the resolution of the Executive committee, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 8.3.2014 calling for his explanation within a period of one week in regard to the alienation of the Church properties. However, he did not give any explanation for the show cause notice. Hence, the property officer of the TELC, namely, Rev.C.Sam Jebaraj Stephenson, who was in management of the Church properties, lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner and others in Usilampatti Police Station and a case was registered in Crime No.137 of 2014 dated 20.4.2014 for offences under sections 120(B), 468, 471, 406 and 420 of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Bishop-President and submitted a letter of resignation as Correspondent of TELC Girls Higher Secondary School dated 7.5.2014 and gave assurance that he would re-convey the school-playground within 40 days and requested to permit him to continue as Correspondent of the School in order to do that work.
24. Adding further, the learned counsel for second and third respondents would submit that the Executive Committee considering the petitioner's undertaking that he would re-convey the property, permitted him to act as Correspondent of the School for 45 days w.e.f. 1.7.2014 vide EC Proceedings No.1245 dated 28.6.2014 with the condition that he should re- convey the properties within that period. However, he failed to re- convey the property as per his undertaking. Therefore, the executive committee in his further proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 gave him a week's time to effect re-conveyance of the property with a warning that he would be removed from office without any further notice if he failed to do so. However, the petitioner did not come forward to re-convey the property.
25. Continuing his argument, the learned counsel would submit that subsequently, the petitioner joined hands with others and attacked physically the Treasurer of TELC, I.E.P.Gnanaraj and a member of the TELC, Iprampaul. Therefore, one more FIR was registered in Crime No.79 of 2015 on the file of Palakarai Police Station, Trichy. On the basis of the FIR, he was arrested, remanded and judicial custody on 7.2.2015. Later, he was enlarged on bail.
26. Adding further, the learned counsel for second and third respondent would submit that, thereafter, the Executive Committee met on 17.2.2015 with due notice to all the members. All the members participated except the petitioner. The Committee resolved to initiate action against the petitioner and further resolved to initiate action against the petitioner and further resolved to remove him from the office of Correspondent of TELC Girls Higher Secondary School, Usilampatti as well as TELC Middle School, Peraiyur Road, Usilampatti vide EC Proceedings No.1251/17/2013-2016 dated 17.2.2015. The third respondent was appointed as the Correspondent of TELC Middle School, Peraiyur Road, Usilampatti, the second respondent communicated the extract proceedings of the Executive Committee dated 17.2.2015 nominating the second respondent as Correspondent of TELC Middle School, Peraiyur Road, Usilampatti by his letter dated 17.2.2015. However, inadvertently, the second respondent mentioned the earlier proceedings of the Executive committee No.1250 dated 28.10.2014 instead of EC Proceedings No.1251 dated 17.2.2015. Subsequently, the third respondent, namely, Rooban Vasanthakumar assumed charge as Correspondent, immediately on 2.3.2015 and also submitted a proposal to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Usilampatti vide letter dated 2.3.2015. The District Elementary Educational Officer returned the proposal pointing out certain deficiencies. Thereafter, the School re- submitted the proposal after rectifying the deficiencies vide letter dated 22.4.2015. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Usilampatti vide proceedings dated 30.4.2015 forwarded the proposal to the District Elementary Educational Officer recommending to register the name of Rooban Vasanthakumar as Correspondent of TELC Middle School, Peraiyur Road, Usilampatti and the same has been pending before the District Elementary Educational Officer.
27. Concluding his argument, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner in the above two Writ Petitions would submit that the Executive committee is the authority competent to nominate the Correspondents to the various educational institutions on behalf of the TELC. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, removal of such person from the post of Correspondent cannot amount to violating the policy of the TELC, accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
28. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, insofar as the petitioner, namely, M.Yogananth is concerned, it is found that the petitioner had leased out a House belonging to the Church at Survey No.342B/147 in Usilampatti Village, Madurai District in favour of his wife Tmt.Suganthi Yogananth for a period of 99 years. He has also alleged to have sold away various Church properties by using forged documents including a play ground of the TELC Girls Higher Secondary School, Usilampatti at Survey Nos.226 and 238 in Usilampatti Village. Based on the complaint of the property officer of the TELC, namely, Rev.C.Sam Jebaraj Stephenson, the Palakarai Police registered a case in Crime No.137/2014 dated 20.4.2014 under sections 120(B), 468, 471, 406 and 420 of the IPC. Thereafter, he was arrested and enlarged on bail.
29. In these circumstances, as mentioned above, the petitioner himself has tendered his resignation letter dated 7.5.2014 as Correspondent of TELC Girls Higher Secondary School and has given assurance that he would re-convey the school play ground within 40 days and requested him to permit him to continue as Correspondent of the School in order to do that work. The Executive committee considered his request and permitted him to act Correspondent of the School for 45 days w.e.f. 1.7.2014 vide EC Proceedings No.1245 dated 28.6.2014 with a condition that he should re-convey the property within that period. Even then, the petitioner did not re-convey the property. The Executive Committee, by proceedings No.1250 dated 28.10.2014, gave him a week's time to effect re-conveyance of the property and warned him that he would be removed from office otherwise, without any further notice. However, the petitioner did not re-convey the property. While this being so, the petitioner along with a few others, physically attacked the Treasurer of TELC I.E.P.Gnanraj and a member of the TELC Iprampaul. Consequently, Palakrai Police, Trichy registered a criminal case in Crime No.79/2015 and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 7.2.2015. Subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. Therefore, when the criminal cases were pending on serious charges of alienation of property belonging to the school, and on charges of attacking the members of the TELC, it is not legally permissible for the petitioner to function as correspondent of the School. Hence, the order of his removal is absolutely in order. The Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
30. In the result, all the three Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To
1.The District Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.
.