Judgment :- CRP(NPD).No.133 of 2007:- CRP (NPD).133 of 2007 is directed against the order passed in EA.No.13 of 2005 in O.S.No.17 of 1960 (scheme decree) amended from O.S.No.68 of 1948. EA.No.13 of 2004 was filed under Section 151 CPC to remove the respondent Senthilvel from the membership of AVC Educational Committee. 2. The petitioner in EA.No.13 of 2004 would state that the respondent was appointed as a member of AVC Educational Committee by the Court and was also elected as a Secretary of the said Educational Committee. According to the petitioner, the respondent has not shown any interest in the welfare of the AVC Educational Committee, but has acted against the interest of AVC Educational Committee by misusing her powers. According to the petitioner, the following grounds are alleged against the respondent for removing him from the membership of AVC Educational Committee:- 1) On 12. 2001 six lectures have been appointed in the AVC Arts College. At the interference of the respondent the appointment of one of the candidates was cancelled and in his place another person was appointed. On 212. 2001 one Baskaran was appointed as Administrative Assistant in the Zoology Department of AVC Arts College since he has not joined in the above said post, on 1. 2002 one J.Pandiyan was terminated from his service on the ground of over employment. The above said Pandiyan was terminated from service only within 10 days from the date of his appointment with ulterior motive. 2) One Ramakrishnan was appointed in the Administrative Section as Senior Superintendent ten days after his retirement at the pay scale of Rs.9,000/- per month. The said action by the respondent was in a way indirectly extending his age of retirement. 3) An interview for the appointment of Lecturers for 13 department was conducted and about 492 applications were received. The respondent without cancelling the leave applied by the Principal had directed the Principal to attend the college on 15. 2002 and had approved 184 applications alone. 4) On 3. 2003 for the construction of building for the college an estimate was prepared and the said estimate was got approved by circulating the same to AVC Educational Committee and the construction work was started on 3. 2003, but no work order was issued to the contractors. 2002 and had approved 184 applications alone. 4) On 3. 2003 for the construction of building for the college an estimate was prepared and the said estimate was got approved by circulating the same to AVC Educational Committee and the construction work was started on 3. 2003, but no work order was issued to the contractors. 5) With the aid of United States of America, a project by name U.S.Wild Life Project was started in the AVC Arts College. At that time with an aim to conduct the project in a successful manner the petitioner herein while he was working as the President of the AVC Educational Committee had formed an experts committee. The first meeting of the said experts committee was conducted on 29. 2001. The next meeting was proposed to be convened on 10. 2001 in order to regulate the function of the above said expert committee, but the respondent / secretary had sidelined the said experts committee and has released the project investigator on 26. 2003. The accounts for the said experts committee was also not handed over in the said meeting. 6) For the purpose of dispersing advance amount to the contractors, bank guaranty is required. But after the respondent has become the Secretary, contrary to the above said convention, had sanctioned several lakhs of rupees to the Contractors for the purpose of constructing the Computer Block at AVC College on the basis of corporate guaranty instead of bank guaranty. 7) To Sathiyapal India Company Ltd, even before the completion of the building construction of the AVC Polytechnic final bill was prepared and amount was dispersed. But as per the Rules of the College without prior sanction the Secretary can spent only upto Rs.1,000/-m, in case of emergency without any circular the Secretary can spend upto Rs.20,000/-. But the respondent as a Secretary had spent Rs.31,196 /- without any prior permission. 8) Like that the respondent without following the Rules had also spent Rs.1,33,000/-on 29. 2003 for the purpose of purchasing cements. At the time of meeting of the College Committee of AVC Polytechnic and Engineering college upto Rs.200/- alone is liable to be allowed for the members to meet their traveling expenses, but the respondent had sanction Rs.300/- without obtaining any permission to his relative Lalithasundari to meet her traveling expenses. 2003 for the purpose of purchasing cements. At the time of meeting of the College Committee of AVC Polytechnic and Engineering college upto Rs.200/- alone is liable to be allowed for the members to meet their traveling expenses, but the respondent had sanction Rs.300/- without obtaining any permission to his relative Lalithasundari to meet her traveling expenses. 9) For the purpose of constructing a compound wall for AVC Engineering College as well as Polytechnic College for different contractors the work was entrusted at the rate of Rs.300/- per meter and Rs.200/-per meter. But in favour of M/s.Sathiyapa India Company Ltd., a company owned by a related of one of the members of the AVC Educational Committee by name S.Karthikeyan, the respondent has sanction Rs.511/-per meter. 10) The accounts pertaining to U.S.Wild Life Project without any recognition the respondent had sent the same to the Central Government and also to the foreign agencies on 7. 2003 and 8. 2002 respectively. This creates suspicion on the said accounts submitted by the respondent. On 22. 2004 sanction was requested in respect of the articles received in connection with the said project to handover the same to another company. But when the agreement prepared for projects 1 & 2 revealed that several changes have been made in the same. Out of 8 pages of the agreement 6 pages alone were removed, instead new pages were found inserted. This can been seen from the Roman Letter given as I & II in those newly added pages. As per the Rule 10(g) of the Educational Committee, the respondent alone is responsible for the above said manipulation of records. So on the above ground the petitioner had sort the indulgence of the Scheme Court to remove the respondent from the Educational Committee of AVC College. 3. The respondent in his counter would state that the petitioner belongs to Pallavarayan Pettai Family and he was working as a member in the AVC Educational Committee from 3. 2003. So on the above ground the petitioner had sort the indulgence of the Scheme Court to remove the respondent from the Educational Committee of AVC College. 3. The respondent in his counter would state that the petitioner belongs to Pallavarayan Pettai Family and he was working as a member in the AVC Educational Committee from 3. 2003. While E.A.No.18 of 2003 filed by the respondents father for the removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Educational Committee and while another suit is pending against the petitioner for the purpose of recovery of possession of the property belonging to the AVC Trust from the possession of the petitioner herein and also pending a criminal case against the petitioner in respect of forgery of documents in connection with the transfer of the properties belonging to the trust, this vexatious petition has been filed by the petitioner with ulterior motive. The respondent has not taken any independent decision in the above said 10 irregularities alleged by the petitioner. Each and every decision was taken by the Educational Committee. As stated in the allegation, the allocation dated 12. 2001 for the vacancies of 5 Lecturers in the college was approved by the Director of the Education Committee of the college. The above said 5 lecturers were selected and appointed through employment exchange. With regard to the selection of Baskaran there was no unanimous opinion arrived at by the members of the Education Committee and hence, a meeting was convened on 212. 2001 and one Nagarajan, a awardee of two doctorate decrees, was selected after transferring Baskaran to the Administrative Branch of Zoology Department. But the said Baskaran had not joint in the new post. Only on the basis of the higher qualification of Nagarajan, he was selected and his selection was also approved by the Director of College Education. On the recommendation made by the Head of the department the lecturer of Zoology viz., Pandiyan was terminated from service. From 1961 onwards Mr.Ramakrishan was working in AVC College and he was attending to the affairs relating to the University, Polytechnic and Directorate of Industrial Collegiate Education. He was appointed as senior superintendent in the Administrative branch at the pay scale of Rs.9,000/- per month and it has been further ordered by the Educational Committee of the his salary shall be divided by the University, Polytechnic and Directorate of Industrial Collegiate Education department. He was appointed as senior superintendent in the Administrative branch at the pay scale of Rs.9,000/- per month and it has been further ordered by the Educational Committee of the his salary shall be divided by the University, Polytechnic and Directorate of Industrial Collegiate Education department. In the above said appointment of Ramakrishnan there was no violation of Rules. For filling up the post of the lecturer in the college, 592 application were received and out of them 184 applicants were interviewed and selected after scrutiny of their application and educational qualification. The said appointment was in consonance with the Rules of the Education Committee and was also approved by the appropriate authorities. The way leading to the college and the gate in the college were sanctioned by the members of the college Committee on 3. 2003, which was subsequently been approved by circular dated 13. 2003. An estimate was prepared by the Project Engineer and work order was issued on 20.3.2003. Before the annual day celebrations, the contractors were informed to complete the work by the respondent. The project by name U.S. Wild Life Project was functioning with the help of American aid. As per the Rule 35 of the AVC Educational Administrative Rules a Sub-Rule was formed and as per the said Sub-rule for the above said project approvable can be given only by the College Committee. There is no necessity for functioning any experts committee in respect of the above said U.S. Wild Life Project. There is no sanction in the Rules for appointing experts committee and there is no useful purpose will be served by appointment of experts committee. The said committee was appointed solely at the discretion of the petitioner. The duration for the said project was two years. Even though the said period has been extended since the Centre by name Salimali was not approved, the project was relieved and handed over to Salimali Centre. All the accounts for the said project has been submitted by the respondent and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was handed over to Sathiyapal India Company Ltd., towards advance for the purpose of constructing laboratory block and the same was approved by the College Committee by way of circular. Corporation guaranty is equivalent to the bank guaranty and the same is a valid and enforceable one. Corporation guaranty is equivalent to the bank guaranty and the same is a valid and enforceable one. The contractor has also completed his work as per the terms of the contract. The Corporation guaranty was also accepted on 2. 2003 itself. A white washing at the cost of Rs.6,000/- alone remain to be completed by the said contractor since the said room was not suitable to carry out the white washing immediately. But subsequently the said work was also completed and approved. At the time of installation of Basket Ball ground the respondent was not the Secretary. At the time when the respondent took charge he found the Basket ball court for not suitable for the students, hence he caused to erect pillars and board enabling the students to play Basket Ball in the said ground. The expenses were approved by the resolution No.3 dated 9. 2003. For the purpose of carryout civil work a sum of Rs.10,000/-was sanctioned. For the purpose of erecting acrylic board and a sum of Rs.23,750 was sanction and the said board was purchased after getting quotation for the same and the said expenses were also borne by the Education Committee on 15. 2003 sanction was accorded for constructing laboratory block. On 15. 2003 3000 cement bags for the construction of the laboratory block and on 28. 2003 1000 cement bags were purchased at the cost of Rs.1,33,000/- and the same was also dispersed to the cement company on the very same day. This act of the respondent was also approved on 29. 2003. The cost of Rs.300/- was sanction to meet the traveling expenses of the member Lalitha Sundary. Even when Mr.N.M.Kannan was the President of the Committee previously also a sum of Rs.300/- was given to the member to meet the traveling expenses. The said member came all the way to Chennai to attend the said meeting. For the purpose of constructing a compound wall foundation was dug at the RCC concrete ratio 1:2:4 for ensuring durability. This respondent never acted in favour of Sathiyapal Company. The amount was sanctioned to Sathiyapal Company after the work was approved by the Committee. The US Project accounts were circulated to the Executive Committee on 312. 2002 through a circular and the same was accepted by the resolution dated 3. 2003. This respondent never acted in favour of Sathiyapal Company. The amount was sanctioned to Sathiyapal Company after the work was approved by the Committee. The US Project accounts were circulated to the Executive Committee on 312. 2002 through a circular and the same was accepted by the resolution dated 3. 2003. At the time this Member was in the Executive Committee accounts for the period January-2003 to June 2003 were approved by the resolution No.6 dated 29. 2003. The accounts were also submitted to the Home department and also to the Finance agency. So all the acts of the respondent were approved by the appropriate authority. Hence, the petition is liable to tbe dismissed. 4. Before the Court below / Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked. R.W.1 was examined on the side of the respondent and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.44 were marked. On the available evidence both oral and documentary, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, has come to a conclusion that there was no irregularities committed by the respondent to warrant expulsion of him from the Educational Committee of AVC Collage and accordingly dismissed the petition E.A.No.13 of 2004 in Scheme decree in O.S.No.17/60 (O.S.No.68/48), which necessitated the petitioner to prefer this revision petition before this Court. CRP(NPD).No.2070 of 2004:- 5. The order passed in EA.No.135 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, is under challenge in this revision. The same application was filed by the petitioner to disqualify and remove the third respondent Mr.E.S.Ganapathy from the membership of the second respondent – Education Committee. 6. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a trustee of the first respondent – Anbanathapuram Vahaiyara Charities, Mayavaram. The third respondent is an appointed member in the second respondent institutions and he is an Engineer by profession. The third respondent personally undertook the construction work by withdrawing heavy amounts from the Charity funds. University grants commission and University has objected for the third respondent withdrawing heavy amount from the Charity funds for the purpose of meeting the expenses in the building construction work. The third respondent personally undertook the construction work by withdrawing heavy amounts from the Charity funds. University grants commission and University has objected for the third respondent withdrawing heavy amount from the Charity funds for the purpose of meeting the expenses in the building construction work. The 3rd respondent withdrew a sum of Rs.77 lakhs and undertook to the construction of the building Education Committee member made a complaint and the 3rd respondent did the work with greate delay. This has incurred a heavy loss because of escalation of prices and had endangered the stoppage of grants from UGC. Further the petitioner alleged the possible misappropriation of funds by the 3rd respondent in construction of the building. On the complaint of Mr.Rathnakumar, this Court has passed an order dated 14. 1996 with certain observation regarding the construction of the building. The 3rd respondent under the guise of putting up a construction did not render proper accounts and the court has observed in its findings the possible misappropriation. Therefore the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent has not rendered correct accounts and is liable for disqualification as a trustee and also be removed from the membership in the second respondents Education Committee. Hence, the petition. 7. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent adopted the counter filed by the 3rd respondent which runs as follows:- The petition is not maintainable and the 3rd respondent has not personally undertaken any construction work and did not withdraw either a sum of Rs.77 laksh or retained Rs.77 lakhs in this custody. The UGC under no circumstance had complained about the construction or refused to sanction any grants. According to the respondents the allegations, the allegations regarding the courts observation is a deliberate misreading and misrepresenting the observations. It is said that Mr.Rathnakumar raised allegations before the Committee and Scheme Court and they were all proved to be false and incorrect by the scheme court. Hence, this petition is barred by principles of res-judicata. It is claimed that the construction was not done in the individual capacity of the respondent and was departmentally done on the basis of unanimous decision. This work was certified and appreciated by the then Secretary for appreciable savings of public funds. Every expenditure was accounted and duly approved by the board. The accounts were later admitted. It is claimed that the construction was not done in the individual capacity of the respondent and was departmentally done on the basis of unanimous decision. This work was certified and appreciated by the then Secretary for appreciable savings of public funds. Every expenditure was accounted and duly approved by the board. The accounts were later admitted. It is alleged that the petitioner and the instigator are attempting to reagitate the matter on the construction works commenced in 1983-84 and went on till 1995-96. The amounts drawn were utilized and were paid by cheques. The system was being followed from 1974. The accounts were submitted monthly and the annual accounts were duly scrutinized by the committee and were subjected to audit. The statements were submitted to the court on 13. 1996 when this issue was raised. Therefore, the respondent stated that the charges levelled against him are totally baseless and motivated. It is further claimed that the execution of the construction work was done departmentally and the cost had been reduced by more than 20% and the quality of work was also excellent and durable. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Before the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the College Superintendent Mr.Ramakrishnan was examined as R.W.1. On the side of the petitioner Ex.P.1 was marked and on the side of the respondents Ex.X1 to Ex.X.5 were marked. 9. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary and after giving due deliberations tot he submissions made by the counsels on both sides, the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, allowed the petition holding that the 3rd respondent had squarely come within the definition of Section 7(e) of the Scheme Rules and is liable to be disqualified from the membership of the AVC Charities Education Committee and accordingly allowed the application as prayed for. Aggrieved by the findings of the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in EA.No.135 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960, this revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner / 3rd respondent in EA.No135 of 1998. CRP(NPD).No.2707 of 2004:- 10.The order passed in EA.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, is under challenge in this revision. 11. CRP(NPD).No.2707 of 2004:- 10.The order passed in EA.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, is under challenge in this revision. 11. According to the revision petitioner, the third respondent has violated the Rules contemplated under clause 7(e) of the Scheme decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, and he is liable to be removed from the trusteeship of the first respondent Charity and membership of the second respondents Committee. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in the 1st respondent Charity as a trustee in the general public category. He is dutiful citizen and interested in the educational institutions of the first and second respondents. The Scheme Decree in O.S.No.68 of 1948 which was amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 has stipulated the guidelines to have a better management of the properties of Anbanathapuram Vahaiyara Charities. The Scheme further contemplates disqualification of the Board of Trustees also. The 3rd respondent is holding the post of trusteeship of the board of trustees in first respondents charities and claimed that third respondent is termed as a debtor to the first respondent Charities as per clause 7(e) of the Scheme Decree in O.S.No.68 of 1948. The 3rd respondents father Sabesen Pillai was one of the Trustees earlier. The said Sabesan Pillar borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 26. 1960 alongwith his brother Satyapal executing a Registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the Indian Bank, Mayiladuthurai on 26. 1960 at the rate of interest at 24% and due to pressure given by third respondents father Sabesen Pillai. The amount of Rs.50,000/- was given as loan to Sabesan Pillai, at a reduced rate of interest. Sabesan Pillai and his brother executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the first respondent. Sabesan Pillai died in June 1991 without discharging the loan. The third respondent was the only legal representative of the deceased Sabesan Pillai and inherited the properties of the Sabesan Pillai. The undischarged loan payable by Sabesan Pillai to the first respondent is to be paid by the third respondent. The first respondent discharged the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to Indian Bank, Mayiladuthurai by repaying the Principal Amount with interest. The third respondent was the only legal representative of the deceased Sabesan Pillai and inherited the properties of the Sabesan Pillai. The undischarged loan payable by Sabesan Pillai to the first respondent is to be paid by the third respondent. The first respondent discharged the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to Indian Bank, Mayiladuthurai by repaying the Principal Amount with interest. The margin of excess interest was paid by the first respondent charities and the loan amount of the first respondent charities was utilized for third respondents father Sabesan Pillai. The Sabesan Pillai and Satyapal have not repaid with interest to the first respondent Charities and the first respondents charities is entitled to collect the principal amount with 36% interest. It is for this reason, the third respondent is termed as debtor and is liable for disqualification from trusteeship of the first respondents charities. Further, he shall be disqualified from the membership in the AVC Education Committee viz., the second respondent. 12. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent adopted the counter filed by the third respondent, which runs as follows:- According to the third respondent, this application has been filed with ulterior motive. There are similar such applications against this petitioner pending before the Court. One Naga Pannerselvam is a co-accused with Mr.P.N.Rathinakumar in a criminal case involving misappropriation of funds of a co-operative society. The 3rd respondent was appointed as a trustee in A.V.Charities representing Anbanathapuram Family and eversince his advent, it had become impossible for Mr.Natesan and Rathinakumar to dominate in the committee while carryingout resolution. The 3rd respondent is not debtor to A.V.Charities and the mortgage deed alleged to have entered has been discharged. The 3rd respondent is not a debtor under clause 7(e) of the Scheme decree. Under the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Before the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, there was no oral evidence let in by both sides. Ex.P.1 – discharged deed was marked as Ex.P.1. Copy of the order passed on 212. 2002 in O.S.No.68/1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 was marked on Ex.P.2. The Xerox copy of the order passed by the Scheme decree dated 10. 1997 was marked as Ex.P.3. Ex.P.1 – discharged deed was marked as Ex.P.1. Copy of the order passed on 212. 2002 in O.S.No.68/1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 was marked on Ex.P.2. The Xerox copy of the order passed by the Scheme decree dated 10. 1997 was marked as Ex.P.3. After going through the documentary evidence and also after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, after coming to the conclusion that loan obtained by the father of the respondent was discharged by the respondent and as a dutiful son the respondent returned back the arrears of loan which his father had left in 1991, held that the respondent is not liable to the removed from the membership of the Education Committee and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, the petitioner in EA.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960, this revision has bee preferred. 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and considered their respective submissions. 15. For convenience sack let us take up CRP.(NPD).No.2707 of 2004 at first and then CRP.(NPD).No.2070 of 2004 and CRP.(NPD).No.133 of 2007. 16. The Rules of AVC Education Committee was framed in the year 1955 and registered under Registration No.9 / 1955. As per the scheme decree in Original Suit No.234 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, under Rule 7 a board of trustee shall be disqualified under following circumstances. a) If he is an insolvent by a criminal court for an offence b) If he has been convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude c) If he has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind d) If he is incompetent under Hindu law to inherit any property of his family. e) If he is in any way obliges to the Trust as a debtor or as a leasee Or as a sub-tent or in any other manner f) Any member who if found negligent by the Auditor g) Any member who is otherwise disqualified under law h) If any member is found to have acted against the interest of the trust or any of it institution. The petitioner has filed EA.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, (against which CRP.NPD.No.2707 of 2004 has been preferred) against the 3rd respondent – S.Karthikeyan, son of Sabesen Pillai, a member of the second respondent -AVC Charities Education Committee, to disqualify him from the membership of the AVC Charities Education Committee on the ground that his father Sabesan Pillai had obtained a mortgage loan of Rs.50,000/- along with his brother Satyapal and executed a mortgage deed in favour of the first respondent – Anbanathapuram Vahaiyara Charities, Mayavaram, who in turn had borrowed Rs.50,000/-from the Indian Bank, Mayiladuthurai on 26. 1960 at the rate of 24% per annum and gave the same to Sabesan Pillai. But neither Sabesan Pillai nor his son 3rd respondent have discharged the said loan of Rs.50,000/- to the first respondent and thereby made the first respondent trust as a debtor, liable to be disqualified under Rule 7(e) of the Scheme decree. On petition Ex.P.1 was sent for by the Court and marked. Ex.P.1 revealed that the amount borrowed by Sabesan Pillai, the father of the third respondent, was discharged by the 3rd respondent as early as on 5. 1998 itself. After recording its appreciation for the third respondent -karthikeyan, who had come forward to discharge the mortgage loan of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by his father Sabesan Pillai and his brother Sathyapal under Ex.P.1 found no merit in the application, had dismissed the application. Against Ex.P.1 there was no oral or documentary evidence let in by the petitioner to show that the loan of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by the 3rd respondents father Sabesan Pillai, from the first respondent was not discharged, since the loan borrowed by the 3rd respondents father Sabesan Pillai and his brother Satyapal was discharged as seen from Ex.p.1 there is no need to disqualify the 3rd respondent under Rule 7(e) of the Scheme decree, arises for consideration as correctly held by the learned Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. Hence, CRP.NPD.No.2707 of 2004 is liable to be dismissed. 17. CRP.NPD.No.2070 of 2004 has been filed by the 3rd respondent – Ganapathy in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960. Hence, CRP.NPD.No.2707 of 2004 is liable to be dismissed. 17. CRP.NPD.No.2070 of 2004 has been filed by the 3rd respondent – Ganapathy in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960. The allegation levelled against the 3rd respondent-Ganapathy by the petitioner in EA.No.135 of 1996 is that without obtaining the proper sanction or permission, the 3rd respondent, who was a member of the Education Committee of the 2nd respondent had withdrawn Rs.77 lakhs and undertook the construction of the building of AVC Collage and has also failed to produce the property Accounts for the above said Rs.77 lakhs, the money belonging to the first respondent Charity. Before the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.5 have been marked. The charge against the revision petitioner herein / 3rd respondent in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 is that for construction of building in the AVC College, the revision petitioner herein had spent Rs.77 lakhs, but it was not properly accounted for. R.W.1 the Superintendent of AVC College, who was examined on the side of the R3, has produced any document to show that the buildings of the first respondent Charity in the AVC College were constructed at the cost of Rs.77 lakhs. There is no dispute on the side of the 3rd respondent that he had not spent Rs.77 laksh for constructing the building for the AVC College. But the only thing which is unexplained by the 3rd respondent in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 is why a public tender was not call for to construct the building at the costs of Rs.77 lakhs. If the public tender would have been called for then there will be a possibility of allot the tender in favour of the person who has bid for a lower tender. Further, even before the Scheme Court there was no satisfactory evidence adduced on the side of the 3rd respondent in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 to show that Rs.77 lakhs of the first respondent trust has been properly utilized for constructing the buildings for the AVC College or to the trust. Further, even before the Scheme Court there was no satisfactory evidence adduced on the side of the 3rd respondent in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 to show that Rs.77 lakhs of the first respondent trust has been properly utilized for constructing the buildings for the AVC College or to the trust. It is pertinent to note that the 3rd respondent in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 has not chosen to enter into box to depose as to the effect that he has maintained accounts for the building construction cost of Rs.77 lakhs belonging to the trust. The R.W.1 -Ramakrishnan, Superintendent of AVC College, would admit in the cross-examination that he is not aware about the order passed by the Scheme Court in respect of Rs.77 lakhs. However, through him Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.5 were marked. It is seen from Ex.X.1 -reconciliation statement the buildings were constructed during the year 1987 and 1992. The reconciliation statement is not supported by any bills are vouchers for the purchase of the building materials shown in the reconciliation statement. As per Ex.X.4 the order of the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 24. 1997 there is a specific direction that before the starting of the construction tender to be obtained for building materials and after considering the price quotation in the said tenders it should be placed before the Education Committee and after approval the work shall be entrusted to the labour contractor for constructing the building. But there is no material placed this Court by the revision petitioner / 3rd respondent in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 to show that the order of the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, dated 24. 1997 i.e., Ex.X.4 was followed by him (R3-Ganapathy) in letter and spirit. Only under such circumstance, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthruai, has come to an unassailable conclusion that as per Rule 7(e) of the Scheme Rules, the 3rd respondent – Ganapathy EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 is liable to be disqualified to be a member of the Education Committee of the AVC Charities. Only under such circumstance, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthruai, has come to an unassailable conclusion that as per Rule 7(e) of the Scheme Rules, the 3rd respondent – Ganapathy EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 is liable to be disqualified to be a member of the Education Committee of the AVC Charities. I do not fine any reason to interfere with the well considered order in EA.No.135 of 1996 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. Hence, I hold that CRP.NPD.No.2070 of 2004 is liable to be dismissed. 18. The order passed in EA.No.13 of 2004 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, is under challenge in CRP.NPD.No.133 of 2007 before this Court. There are 10 allegation made against the respondent, a member of the AVC Education Committee, for disqualifying him from AVC Education Committee. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai has taken up 10 allegations made against the respondent one by one and has held that not even a single allegation was proved against the respondent and accordingly dismissed EA.No.13 of 2004 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960. Admittedly the respondent was elected as a Secretary of the AVC Education Committee. 18(1) With regard to the appointment of N.Baskaran as a Lecturer in the Zoology Department of AVC College, it has been alleged by the petitioner in EA.No.13 of 2004 that on the basis of the letter by the respondents father Mr.Chockalingam a circular dated 12. 2001 was circulated and on 212. 2001 the said appointment of Baskaran was cancelled. But according to the respondent, one Nagarajan, who was holding two doctorate decrees, was appointed in the place of Baskaran and Baskaran was appointed as Superintendent in the Administrative Department. Further there was no evidence to the effect that N.Baskaran had joint in the post of Lecturer of AVC College has per the order of appoint dated 212. 2001 and on the basis of R.W.1s evidence as to the effect that out of 10 Education Committee members 9 have approved the selection of Nagarajan, a suitable Ph.D holder. Further there was no evidence to the effect that N.Baskaran had joint in the post of Lecturer of AVC College has per the order of appoint dated 212. 2001 and on the basis of R.W.1s evidence as to the effect that out of 10 Education Committee members 9 have approved the selection of Nagarajan, a suitable Ph.D holder. The alleged letter written by the father of the respondent was also not produced by the petitioner before the scheme court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. Under such circumstance, it cannot be said that Nagarajan was appointed only at the instance of the father of the respondent. 18(2) Regarding the termination of J.Pandiyan, lecturer, Zoology Department in the AVC College, since Pandiyan was found irregular in his duties, he was issued with a notice dated 312. 2001 and he was terminated from service on 312. 2001. The complaint made against Pandiyan by the Head of the Department on 212. 2001 has been marked as Ex.R4. Ex.R.5 is a month notice issued to Pandiyan. Ex.R.6 is the relieving order received by Pandiyan and the resolution approved the removal of Pandiyan by the AVC Administrative Committee is Ex.R.7. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that Pandiyan has so far not agitated his termination of service before the Administrative Committee or before any Court of law. Under such circumstance as rightly held by the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, that the termination of Pandiyan is in accordance with Rules. 18(3) With regard to the 3rd allegation regard appoint of Ramakrishnan. The said Ramakrishan was working in AVC College from the year 1961 and he had put in 40 years of service in the said college and taking into consideration the long unblemished record of service of Ramakrishnan and for the interest of the welfare of AVC Arts College, AVC Engineering College and also AVC Polytechnic, Ex.R.8 – office note dated 3. 2002 was prepared, which was approved under Ex.R.9 date 13. 2002 by the College Administrative Committee and only afterward Ramakrishan was appointed as Head Superintendent of the Administrative Department at the pay scale of Rs.9,000/- to be share by the three colleges by name AVC Arts College, Engineering and Polytechnic. 2002 was prepared, which was approved under Ex.R.9 date 13. 2002 by the College Administrative Committee and only afterward Ramakrishan was appointed as Head Superintendent of the Administrative Department at the pay scale of Rs.9,000/- to be share by the three colleges by name AVC Arts College, Engineering and Polytechnic. Against the said evidence there absolutely no contrary evidence let in by the petitioner in EA.No.13 of 2004 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 to show that the appointment of Ramakrishan was mala fide. 18(4) The forth charge against the respondent is that out of the 492 applications received for the lecturer posts only 184 applicants were considered by the respondent. Out of 492 applications received only 185 applicants were qualified to apply for the lecturer posts in 13 departments of the AVC College and this short-list was prepared by the Principal of the College and neither the Administrative Committee nor the respondent had no play in short-list of 184 candidates applications from out of 492 applications. Absolutely there is no material placed before this Court to show that the motive for the respondent in short-listing 184 applications alone from out of the 492 applications. The applicants who have disqualified have not filed any case before the Court of law contending that their applications have been rejected without any material or basis. 18(5) The fifth charge against the respondent is that the construction of the wall in the college. The construction of the college building was started after preparing the estimate dated 3. 2002 on 3. 2003. The said estimate was prepared by the Project Engineer of the Engineering College, which was circulated to many members of the Education Committee and after getting their approval only the work was started immediately on 3. 2003 since there was 48th Annual day function was scheduled to be celebrated on 13. 2003. so for paucity of time only the minor work of the entrance of the college and the other compound wall were constructed and no other building was constructed by the respondent. So only after getting the approvable from the Education Committee the respondent had started and completed the said work. It cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the Rules framed in the Scheme Decree. 18(6) The 6th allegation is the closure of U.S.Wild Life Project. So only after getting the approvable from the Education Committee the respondent had started and completed the said work. It cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the Rules framed in the Scheme Decree. 18(6) The 6th allegation is the closure of U.S.Wild Life Project. U.S.Wild Life Project was started with the help of American fund and the Project Officer was one Sivaganesan. He was an expert in studying the habits and behaviors of the elephants and he was also working as Salimali Centre, which was recognized by the Central Government regarding the research of wild animals. Since the said Sivaganesan, the Project Officer, could not work more than two years in the college, since his services were required by the parent department viz. Selimali Centre, Government of India, the project could not be continued since no other suitable persons was availed to be appointed as the Project Officer for the said project. There was absolutely no evidence let in by the petitioner in EA.No.13 of 2004 to show that the respondent alone is responsible for the closure of U.S.Wild Life Project. Therefore, this charge fails. 18(7) The 7th charge is instead of Bank guaranty, corporate guaranty was obtained by the respondent from the Contractors. In this regard Ex.R.16 circular was circulated for having received Rs.5 lakhs towards bank guaranty, corporate guaranty was accepted and the same was approved by the Education Committee on 2. 2003 and a resolution Ex.R.17 dated 2. 2003 has also been passed. Hence, it cannot be said that the receipt of corporate guaranty is bad in law. 18(8) The 8th charge is in respect of construction of the wall. As per Ex.R.18 and Ex.R.19 circulars and office note, Ex.R.20 dated 12. 2001 circular and Ex.R.21 dated 212. 2001 steps were initiated and as per Ex.P.22 the same was approved by the members and as per Ex.P.22 it is seen that only a painting work in the remaining rooms to be completed out of the project of Rs.2.01 crores and that for the said work corporation guaranty to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs has also been obtained. Under such circumstance, this charge against the respondent also fails. 18(9) Regarding the 9th charge in respect of construction of Basket Ball Ground, R.W.1 has deposed to the fact that the Project Engineer Report dated 110. Under such circumstance, this charge against the respondent also fails. 18(9) Regarding the 9th charge in respect of construction of Basket Ball Ground, R.W.1 has deposed to the fact that the Project Engineer Report dated 110. 2001, an estimate for completing the Basket Ball ground was prepared for Rs.9,700/- and acrylic board was purchased for Rs.23,750 and both the expenditures have been approved by the Administrative Committee meeting dated 9. 2003. Ex.R.23 is the Office Note of the Project Engineer. Ex.R.24 is the Office Note for purchase of the Acrylic board for the Basket Ball ground and Ex.R.25 is the Office Note for the Principals letter dated 20.8.2003 and Ex.R.26 is the steps taken in the Administrative Committee meeting and Ex.R.27 is the letter of the Principal. So under such circumstance, it cannot be said that there is an illegality in the construction of the Basket Ball ground. 18(10) Charge No.10 is relating to purchase of cement on 23. 2003 to the tune of Rs.1,43,000/-. As per Ex.R.26 – circular 300 bags of cement has been purchased. As per Ex.R.29 the College Administrative Committee has approved the same and after apprehending that the same price is going to be raised on 28. 2003 as per the Office Note of the Principal under Ex.R.30 1000 bags of cement was purchased for Rs.1,43,000/- and the amount was dispersed by way of cheque and the same act was also approved under Ex.R.31 by the College Administrative Committee. So because of the said act there was an gain to the college administration and there was no material placed by the petitioner in EA.No.13 of 2004 to show that because of the said act of the respondent the college had incurred loss. So charge 10 also fails. 18(11) The last charge is payment of to Mrs.Lalithasundari. Mrs.Lalithasundari is the sister of the respondent. The allegation is that she was paid Rs.300/- in respect of Rs.200/- towards travel allowance. But it has been brought to the notice of the Scheme Court that as per Ex.P.32 previously also one lecturer by name N.M.Kumar, who had attended the meeting from out of station was paid Rs.300/- towards traveling allowance. Mrs.Lalithasundari is the sister of the respondent. The allegation is that she was paid Rs.300/- in respect of Rs.200/- towards travel allowance. But it has been brought to the notice of the Scheme Court that as per Ex.P.32 previously also one lecturer by name N.M.Kumar, who had attended the meeting from out of station was paid Rs.300/- towards traveling allowance. Under such circumstance, the Scheme Court has held that all the charges leveled against the respondent by the petitioner in EA.No.13 of 2004 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960, have failed and accordingly dismissed EA.No.13 of 2004. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in EA.No.13 of 2004 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960. Under such circumstance, CRP.NPD.No.133 of 2007 also fails. 19. When the matter was posted today for judgment, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.2070 of 2004 relying on 1981 (4) SCC 148 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Krishna Rice Mills) would contend that the 3rd respondent / revision petitioner herein had already resigned from the membership of the Education committee and that on the date of passing of the orders in EA.No.135 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai / Scheme Court, he was not in Education Committee as a member and hence, the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in EA.No.135 of 1998 has become infructuous. For the same proposition of law, the learned counsel relied on 2004 (11) SCC 168 (Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Machado Brothers and others). It is not in dispute that on the date of filing of EA.No.135 of 1998, the third respondent / revision petitioner herein was a member of the Education Committee. There is no material placed before this Court to show that even at the time of passing of the order in EA.No.135 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 it was brought before the Scheme Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, that the third respondent had already resigned from the membership of the Education Committee of AVC College. Under such circumstance, it cannot be contended that the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in EA.No.135 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 is infructuous. Relying on 1997 (5) SCC 76 (Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and others), the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.2070 of 2004 would contend that while this Court exercising the powers of Article 227 of the Constitution, should take into consideration the evidences on record, which were failed to be taken note of by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthruai / Scheme Court. Even in the earlier paragraphs I have observed that inspite of the specific direction given by the Scheme Court in its order in O.S.No.68/1948 as amended in O.S.No.16 of 1960 dated 24. 1997, the third respondent without calling for open tenders had utilized Rs.77 lakhs for the purpose of constructing the building. The Scheme Court in its order in EA.No.135 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 at para 8 (typed set of papers 81 in CRP.NPD.No.2070 of 2004) has clearly observed that there was a lack of cost comparison and transparency in accounts. Under such circumstance, the submissions made today by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.2070 of 2004 cannot be sustainable. 20. In fine, CRP.NPD.No.133 of 2007, CRP.NPD.No.2070 and 2707 of 2004 are dismissed confirming the orders passed in EA.No.13 of 2004, EA.No.135 of 1998 and EA.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.68 of 1948 as amended in O.S.No.17 of 1960 on the file of the Scheme Court/Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.