Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 526 (MAD)

M. Arunachalam v. Tamizh Chelvam

2015-01-30

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2015
JUDGMENT K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J. 1. This contempt petition is filed complaining that the interim order of status quo passed in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2014 in W.P. (MD) No. 296 of 2014 dated 07.01.2014 has been willfully disobeyed. 2. The petitioner herein as the writ petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 296 of 2014 challenging the order dated 30.12.2013 appointing the second respondent herein as Head In-charge of Sri Paramkalyani Centre for Environmental Sciences, Manomaniam Sundaranar University, Alwarkurichi with effect from 30.12.2013. 3. In the said writ petition, the petitioner also sought for interim stay of the impugned order in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2014. On 07.01.2014, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was holding the charge of Head of the Department, passed an order of status quo as on that date. According to the petitioner, he had not handed over the charge to the second respondent and on the other hand, through his letter dated 01.01.2014 he refused to handover the charge to the second respondent. Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that when this Court has granted an order of status quo on 07.01.2014, the same having been intimated to the third respondent through letter dated 09.01.2014, not allowing the petitioner to function as Head of the Department continuously is in clear violation of the order of status quo. Therefore, the present contempt petition is filed. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein, it is stated that the petitioner was serving as in-charge from 2007 till 30.12.2013 and the second respondent was appointed as the Head in-charge by the proceedings of the University dated 30.12.2013 on the basis of Syndicate resolution, dated 30.12.2013, and the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 30.12.2013. It is further stated therein that the said proceeding was communicated to the second respondent and the petitioner on the very same day and immediately on receipt of the said proceedings, the second respondent took charge as Head in-charge of the Centre from the Forenoon on 31.12.2013 and has been serving so till date. It is further stated that the second respondent had also intimated taking over of the charge through his letter dated 31.12.2013 to the University and the same was also approved by the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of University. It is further stated that the second respondent had also intimated taking over of the charge through his letter dated 31.12.2013 to the University and the same was also approved by the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of University. It is stated that the petitioner is not in the office as Head in-charge as on 07.01.2014 and that he had played fraud on the court and obtained an order by misleading this Court. As the second respondent had taken charge as the Head of the Centre as early as 31.12.2013 much before the interim order granted by this Court, which also is an order of status quo as on 07.01.2014, no contempt is made out. Apart from saying so, the first respondent has also expressed unconditional apology in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that any contempt is made out. 5. The second respondent filed a separate counter affidavit stating that he assumed office on 31.12.2013 itself and signed the attendance register on 02.01.2014 and thereafter, he was on earn leave from 03.01.2014 to 08.01.2014. 6. In the re-joinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has reiterated his contention to the effect that in view of the letter given by him on 01.01.2014 refusing to handover the charge, there is no question of taking over charge by the second respondent as contended by him. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the letter given by the second respondent on 31.12.2013 is not the letter indicating taking over of the charge and on the other hand, it is an acceptance of the offer made for the employment. Therefore, it is contented that the second respondent has not taken over the charge and on the other hand, the petitioner is continuing in the office. She further pointed out that on 21.05.2014, the petitioner was directed to handover the keys through communication issued by the Registrar dated 21.05.2014 and he was shown as Head of the Department in application for withdrawal from the Provident Fund Account dated 11.09.2014. Therefore, she submitted that the contentions of the respondents are not factually correct. She further pointed out that on 21.05.2014, the petitioner was directed to handover the keys through communication issued by the Registrar dated 21.05.2014 and he was shown as Head of the Department in application for withdrawal from the Provident Fund Account dated 11.09.2014. Therefore, she submitted that the contentions of the respondents are not factually correct. She relied on unreported decisions made in W.P. No. 488 of 2010 dated 05.01.2010 of the Bombay High Court as well as W.P. No. 1171 of 2008 dated 12.01.2009 of Jharkhand High Court in support of her submission that the conduct of the second respondent cannot be construed as the one of taking over the charge procedurally. 8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that even before the issuance of order of status quo on 07.01.2014, the second respondent assumed the office and took charge on 31.12.2013 itself and therefore, the petitioner is not right in contending that he is in the office continuously. He pointed out that letter issued by the second respondent on 31.12.2013 is only indicating the assumption of charge and hence, the respondents have not violated that order of status quo at all. He further submitted that even otherwise, if an order is capable of having two interpretation, no contempt proceedings can be maintained. In support of his submission, he relied upon a decision reported in (1999)2 SCC 537 (Indian Airports Employees' Union vs. Ranjan Chatterjee and another). 9. The learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted that the second respondent had assumed office on 31.12.2013 itself and the letter given by him on the said date is only to the effect that he assumed office on the said day. He further submitted that as the post in which the second respondent was appointed is an in-charge post, no formal procedure needs to be followed. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 11. The petitioner has challenged the order of appointment of the second respondent in the writ petition wherein, an interim order of status quo as on 07.1.2014 came to be passed on 07.01.2014. According to the respondents, in pursuant to the order of appointment, the second respondent assumed office on the very next day and to that effect he has also given a letter indicating that he has taken charge. According to the respondents, in pursuant to the order of appointment, the second respondent assumed office on the very next day and to that effect he has also given a letter indicating that he has taken charge. Perusal of the said letter would show that on 31.12.2013 the second respondent has addressed the first respondent stating that he has accepted the position as Head in-charge from the Forenoon of December 31, 2013 onwards. For proper appreciation, the letter is extracted hereunder:- "From Dr. P. Ravichandran, Professor, SPKCES, M.S. University, Alwarkurichi - 627 412. To The Registrar, M.S. University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli - 621 012. Sir, Sub: Accepting duty as Head in-charge ? reg. Ref: MSU/ESTT/T/SPKCES/Head i/c 2013 dated 30.12.2013 With reference to your above cited order, I accept the position as Head in-charge from the forenoon of December 31, 2013 onwards. I express my sincere gratitude in this regard. I also assure you that I will administer the SPKCES campus as Head in-charge with Full involvement and efforts will be taken to develop the Centre to further lights Thanking You, Yours Sincerely (Sd) (P. RAVICHANDRAN)” 12. Thus, from the reading of the above letter, it cannot be said that the second respondent has only accepted the offer and not taken over the charge. On the other hand, the very sentence saying that he has accepted the position as Head in-charge from the Forenoon of December 31, 2013 onwards and that he assured to administer the campus as Head in-charge with full involvement would show that he has assumed office on 31.12.2013 itself. No doubt, the petitioner through his letter, dated 01.01.2014, intimated the first respondent University that it is not possible for him to handover the charge. But, it does not mean that the second respondent has not assumed the office at all. It is not the case of the petitioner that the taking over of charge was ante dated by the respondents after the grant of order of status quo. Therefore, the letter dated 31.12.2013 issued by the second respondent cannot be doubted. It is also true that the first respondent called upon the petitioner to handover the keys subsequently, through communication dated 21.05.2014. Retaining of the keys alone would not mean that the person is still holding the office. Therefore, the letter dated 31.12.2013 issued by the second respondent cannot be doubted. It is also true that the first respondent called upon the petitioner to handover the keys subsequently, through communication dated 21.05.2014. Retaining of the keys alone would not mean that the person is still holding the office. Likewise the application dated 11.09.2014 for withdrawal of provident fund showing the petitioner as Head of the Department also cannot be taken into account as the application was filled up by the petitioner himself. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the second respondent has not at all assumed the office. Further, a perusal of the attendance register would show that the second respondent has signed the same from 02.01.2014. Therefore, it is clear that as on the date of granting interim order of status quo as on 07.01.2014, the fact remains that the second respondent has already assumed the office. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the second respondent has not taken over the charge in accordance with the procedure and in support of such contention she relied on the above two referred decisions of the Bombay High Court and Jharkhand High Court to say as to how the charge has to be assumed. This Court, while dealing with the present contempt proceedings is not required to go into the question as to whether taking over of charge or assumption of the office was in accordance with the procedure or not. What is to be seen is as to whether the order of status quo granted as on 07.01.2014 was disobeyed or not. Therefore, I am of the view that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Needless to say that the status quo means what prevailed on the day, namely, 07.01.2014 has to be maintained and continued. If the petitioner disputes with regard to the assumption of office and handing over of the charge, certainly it is a matter for further consideration in the main writ petition and therefore, in my considered view, no contempt is made out, based on the above stated facts and circumstances. 14. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. Post Writ Petition for final hearing on 11.02.2015. No costs.