C V L SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. K VENKATESHWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed for punishing respondents 1 to 5 under the Contempt of Courts Act (Act 70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The facts which are either admitted or borne out of the record are as follows; Petitioner is working as a Lecturer in Economics in C.S.R. Sarma College/ Ongole from 1973. He was elected as the Chairman of the Staff Association. As the Chairman of the Staff Association, he became the Officio Member of the Governing Body of the C.S.R. Sarma College, Ongole (for short 'College'). The College was one of the centres for conducting Intermediate Public examinations. Certain irregularities with regard to invigilation seem to have been committed during the course of the conduct of the Intermediate public examinations, with which we are not concerned in these proceedings. The governing body of the college met on 24-4-1988 to consider the alleged irregularities committed as mentioned above. It is stated by the petitioner that the said item was not in the Agenda for discussion and that it is a matter which has to be dealt with by the Board of Intermediate as per the rules and not for the governing body. However, the governing body passed a resolution constituting a committee to enquire into the alleged irregularities in spite of the dissent of the petitioner. Questioning the said resolution constituting an enquiry committee, the affected lecturers filed O.S.No.23 of 1988 in the Court of Vacation Civil Judge, Ongole. The said suit was subsequently re-numbered as O.S.No.286 of 1988. Plaintiffs therein filed I.A.No.194 of 1988 in the said suit for injunction with which we are not concerned in these proceedings. The petitioner herein filed an affidavit in the said I.A.No.194 of 1988 as third party to the suit. In the said third party affidavit filed by the petitioner, he stated that constitution of the committee for enquiring into the alleged irregularities was not on the Agenda and when the matter was brought up by the Secretary and Correspondent for consideration, he objected for the matter being raised in the Governing body meeting and his protest and dissent was not considered and he was no t allowed to make a note of dissent in the minutes book, etc.

(3.) First respondent as the Secretary and Correspondent of the College issued a notice dated 16-8-1988 to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action may notbe initiated against him for filing false and motivated affidavit in I.A.No.194 of 1988 in O.S.No.23 of 1988 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge (District Judge) Ongole. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within a week of the receipt of the said notice and further stating that if no explanation is received within the said period, further action would be initiated on the presumption tht the petitioner has no explanation to offer. Explanation dated 24-9-1988 was submitted by the petitioner. It was admitted therein that he filed the affidavit as it was necessitated in the prevailing circumstances and that whatever he stated therein is true and that he was acting throughout as Member of the governing body representing the staff. He also stated that the suit is pending and therefore, first respondent has no right to determine the truth or otherwise of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and that it is the function of the Court to determine the same. Issuance of the notice constitutes nothing but gross interference with the due course of judicial proceedings and that it amounts to contempt of court. He also justified the f ilingof the third party affidavit. Thereafter, another notice was issued by the first respondent on 5-9-1988 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the intemperate and threatening language used in the explanation submitted by him dt.24-8-1988 and also attributing motives to the respondents. A reply was sent by the petitioner again on 10-9-1988 to the said second notice dated 5-9-1988, saying that the explanation was not taken in a proper perspective etc. Thereafter, the governing body considered all the facts and passed a resolution da ted 6-11-1988 in the following terms: