SENTHILVEL SECRETARY AVC COLLEGE MAYILADUTHURAI Vs. RETHINAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the above two civil revision petitions.

(2.) THESE two civil revision petitions are directed against the order made by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, the Scheme Court made in E.A.No.16 of 2006 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.234 of 1994. One at the instance of the respondent therein and the later at the instance of the petitioner therein.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel on both sides and after looking into the order, the court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case what has been initiated is only the show cause notice has been served on him and he has given an explanation also and hence, an enquiry has got to be conducted. In the meanwhile, he has been suspended. Needless to say, suspension is neither a penalty nor punishment. It is further to be pointed out that merely because there is suspension, no question of challenging the same before the court would arise at that stage on that ground. A regular enquiry has to be conducted and till that time, the parties could wait. But, instead of issuing such a direction, the lower court has passed an elaborate order, discussing both factual and legal positions. The court is of the considered opinion that it was not at all warranted. Apart from that, the contention put forth by the counsel that show cause notice could not be issued cannot be countenanced in law. As could be seen, the educational committee has got power to proceed with the enquiry and to initiate proceedings and it has got powers to issue show cause notice, which has been done. Hence, the same cannot be questioned. At this juncture, even the suspension order, since it is not a penalty or punishment, need not be disturbed.