Judgment : Samudrala Govindarajulu, J. Questioning order of the lower Court passed under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act declaring the alleged termination of the petitioner/1st respondent herein from membership of the revision petitioner viz., Indian Medical Association (IMA), Andhra Pradesh State, Hyderabad by impugned order dated 30.10.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice, this revision petition is filed. The only ground on which the 1st respondent herein was allegedly terminated from membership is that he was falsely claiming himself to be President of Nehru Nagar Branch of IMA without he being the same. It is pointed out by Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner that by Ex.A-1 Order dated 30.10.2008 the 1st respondent’s membership was not terminated, but was only suspended for a period of five years. The said period of five years is going to expire by 29.10.2013 in about three months from now. The revision petitioner intends to make a mountain out of that mole on the ground that though the 1st respondent was suspended for five years, the 1st respondent filed petition in the lower Court alleging termination of his membership and the lower Court proceeded on that allegation and passed the impugned order revoking the alleged termination. Perhaps the 1st respondent who is a Doctor, in the loose sense thought that suspension from membership for five years was equivalent to termination of membership for five years. The said terminology used in the petition as well as in the impugned order of the lower Court, in my opinion, will not matter much in deciding the point in controversy between the parties. It is contended by the 1st respondent that he has been President of Nehru Nagar Branch of IMA since several years and that in the publications of IMA of A.P. State in its 47th Annual Medical Conference and 50th Annual Medical Conference, name of the 1st respondent was published as President of Nehru Nagar Branch, Khammam. It is his contention that it is only on the same basis on which such publications were made by IMA of A.P. State, the 1st respondent stated that he is President of Nehru Nagar Branch of IMA. It appears that the State Branch became irked by the tenor of reply given by the 1st respondent to Ex.A-2 letter addressed by the State Branch to the 1st respondent. It appears that the State Branch became irked by the tenor of reply given by the 1st respondent to Ex.A-2 letter addressed by the State Branch to the 1st respondent. According to the Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner, it is only after following the rules of natural justice by way of addressing Ex.A-2 letter followed by Ex.A-3 reply of the candidate, the State Branch had passed Ex.A-1 suspension order. In Ex.A-2 letter, State Branch of IMA simply asked the 1st respondent to send all the details with proof of the 1st respondent’s election as President, IMA, Nehru Nagar Branch. By the same letter he was also asked to appear before Chairperson, Disciplinary Committee, IMA, A.P. State at IMA building, Isamia Bazar, Hyderabad on 21.08.2008 between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., failing which necessary action will be taken. In Ex.A-2 letter, there is no charge or imputation made by IMA of A.P. State against the 1st respondent to the effect that he was falsely proclaiming as elected President of IMA, Nehru Nagar Branch. In the absence of informing the 1st respondent about imputation or allegation of imputation against him, mere asking for proof for his proclamation that he was elected President of Nehru Nagar Branch of IMA, will not amount to compliance of principles of natural justice. It may be further seen that in Ex.A-3 reply dated 19.08.2008, the 1st respondent while acknowledging receipt of Ex.A-2 letter dated 16.08.2008 on 18.08.2008, stated that for the previous letter addressed to him, he gave reply and also furnished proof. While stating so, again the 1st respondent sent copies of proofs with Ex.A-3. Regarding appearance before Chairperson of Disciplinary Committee, the 1st respondent expressed his inability to attend on 21.08.2008 because of his previous occupation. He sought for 15 days prior notice to him for appearance. He also questioned constitution of the Disciplinary Committee as per the decision taken in 145th Working Committee Meeting that President should be the Convenor and Chairman who has to send notice. The lower Court came to the conclusion that there was no compliance of bye-law No.24 of Ex.B-1 memorandum of Rules and bye-laws of IMA. Bye-law No.24 inter alia contemplates giving of at least seven days’ notice of the meeting to the member concerned and also giving opportunity to explain his conduct if he desires to do so at the meeting. The lower Court came to the conclusion that there was no compliance of bye-law No.24 of Ex.B-1 memorandum of Rules and bye-laws of IMA. Bye-law No.24 inter alia contemplates giving of at least seven days’ notice of the meeting to the member concerned and also giving opportunity to explain his conduct if he desires to do so at the meeting. In the case on hand, Ex.A-2 does not comply with the said bye-law No.24. Ex.A-2 is neither a show-cause notice calling upon the 1st respondent to explain the imputation against him. As pointed out earlier, no imputation or allegations touching the imputation are set out in Ex.A-2 letter. Ex.A-2 letter only sought for proof relating to the 1st respondent claiming himself to be President of Nehru Nagar Branch of IMA. Asking for proof does not amount to calling upon him to explain the alleged mis-conduct or false claim. Further, Ex.A-2 letter dated 16.08.2008 was served on the 1st respondent on 18.08.2008 and the said letter directs the 1st respondent to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 21.08.2008 in about three days of receipt of the said letter. This squarely offends bye-law No.24 which was set out by the lower Court in its order. In Ex.A-1 communication by General Secretary, IMA, A.P. State to the 1st respondent, it was stated that the said Working Committee of IMA in its meeting held on 26.10.2008 at Puttaparthy accepted report of Convenor of Disciplinary Committee and recommended to the State Council to suspend the 1st respondent for five years and that the State Committee on the same day accepted recommendation of the State Working Committee. There is no communication of report of the Disciplinary Committee to the 1st respondent and there is no finding communicated to the 1st respondent to the effect that the imputation or charge against the 1st respondent in this regard was proved. It is contended by Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner that this is not a regular departmental enquiry against a candidate working in any government department for whom the conduct rules or classification rules will apply and that it is a domestic enquiry of the Association which is a society registered. In any event, it is a matter touching the conduct of a Doctor and any adverse decision would offend his reputation. In any event, it is a matter touching the conduct of a Doctor and any adverse decision would offend his reputation. Such decisions also require that at least basic principles of natural justice should be followed giving reasonable opportunity to the candidate before he is hanged either permanently or temporarily for five years. In opinion of this Court, Ex.A-2 not only offends general principles of natural justice but also offends bye-law No.24 of Ex.B-1 Rules and Byelaws of IMA. In those circumstances, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that Ex.A-1 order of the revision petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. I find no reason to differ from reasoning and conclusion of the lower Court. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.