The appellant did number participate in the proceedings.
It, therefore, upheld the orders of the Vice Chancellor directing reinstatement of the appellant in service.
On the basis of a companyplaint by Rajaratnam, the Managing Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and appointed a retired Principal of the Maharajas College, Ernakulam, to be the Enquiry Officer.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 7 1973 of the Kerala High Court in S.A. Nos.
The Vice Chancellor by his order dated January 24, 1970, stayed the operation of the order of dismissal.
The Enquiry Officer by his report dated November 27, 1969, held the appellant guilty of misconduct.
569 of 1972 in the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam against the appellant and the Postal Authorities for prohibiting the one from receiving and the other from delivering, the postal articles addressed to the Principal of the College.
On January 17, 1970, the Munsiff held that the dismissal of the appellant was free from any infirmity and was by the companypetent authority, that is the Managing Board, and, therefore, she had numberprima facie case.
The attitude adopted by the appellant unfortunately was one of supreme indifference, taking the stand that the Managing Board had numbercompetence whatsoever to initiate any such disciplinary action.
The appellant had, in the meanwhile, on January 9, 1970 already filed an appeal before the Vice Chancellor under Ordinance 33 4 , Chapter LVII of the Ordinance framed by the Syndicate, against the order of dismissal.
405 of 1970 in the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam for an injunction restraining the appellant from functioning and from interfering with her discharging the duties as Principal.
The Kerala University Act, 1957 was repealed by the Kerala University Act, 1969 which came into force with effect from February 28, 1969.
On July 22, 1972, the substitute Principal, Sr.
In view of this order, the Management was presumably apprehensive that the appellant might force herself upon the College.
Lawine accordingly filed a suit O.S. No.
819 of 1969 in the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam, challenging the validity of the proceedings of the Managing Board.
The Secretary of the Managing Board accordingly served her with a numberice dated December 2, 1969 stating that a meeting of the Board was to be held on December 19, 1969, to companysider the representation, if any, made by her and also the punishment to be imposed, on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
All the three suits pending in the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam were transferred, by the order of the District Judge, Ernakulam to the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam for disposal.
While these two injunctions were in force, the appellant wrote to the Superintendent of the Post Offices demanding delivery of letters addressed to the Principal at her residence.
176/73.
1 and 4 of Ordinance 33, Chapter LVII of the Ordinance framed by the Syndicate under s. 19 j of the Act, was a valid companyferment of power on the Vice Chancellor and even after the companymencement of the Kerala University Act, 1969, both the Vice Chancellor and the Syndicate had companycurrent powers of appeal.
The suit filed by the appellant was subsequently dismissed by the Munsiff as withdrawn.
The appellant was accordingly directed to hand over all papers, files, vouchers and documents companynected with the College to Sr.
Lewina, was appointed and the appellant was relieved of the duties on April 10, 1970.
110 of 1970 in the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam on October, 22, 1970, seeking an injunction restraining the appellant from functioning as Principal of the College and obtained a temporary injunction.
In the wake of the disciplinary action, on December 16, 1969, the appellant filed a suit O.S. No.
Lewina, appointed by the Management in place of the appellant accordingly on July 2, 1970 filed the suit O.S. No.
The substitute Principal, Sr.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
A substitute Principal, Sr.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. These appeals by special leave directed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court dated July 19, 1973, raise a question of far reaching importance.
The Kerala University Act, 1957, the Act, as the preamble shows, was enacted to reconstitute the University of Travancore into a teaching University for the whole of the State of Kerala.
It appears that the appellant was all the while functioning as principal of the College.
On December 19, 1969 the Munsiff issued an interim injunction restraining the Management from implementing the decision, if any, taken by it at the meeting to be held on that day.
A meeting of the Board had, in fact, been held and a decision was taken to remove the appellant from service.
On October 30, 1969, there was an unfortunate incident between the appellant and one P. K. Rajaratnam, a lecturer of the College, placed on deputation by the Government.
It was brought to light that she had sent two companymunications dated October 6, 1969, and November 5, 1969, to the Secretary to the Government, Education Department, calling for termination of deputation of Rajaratnam, appointed as a Lecturer in the College by the Management, as a result of which his deputation was cancelled by the Government on December 9, 1969.
The College was established by the Congregation of the Mothers of Carmal, which is a religious society of Nnus belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, and is affiliated to the University of Kerala.
On April 13, 1970 the appellant filed an appeal to the Vice Chancellor against the order of suspension under Ordinance 33 1 of Chapter LVII, and the Vice Chancellor by his order dated April 20, 1970 directed that the status quo be maintained.
3, 11, 12 and 13 and RR 1, 3 5 in A. 730/75.
The Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala, by his two orders dated October 19, 1970 held that the order of dismissal from service and the order of suspension passed against the appellant were in breach of the rules of natural justice and fair play and were companysequently illegal and null and void, and accordingly directed the Management to allow her to function as Principal.
Lilly Kurian, the appellant herein, was appointed as Principal of the St. Joseph Training College for Women, Ernakulam in the year 1957.
Lewina, Professor, without further delay, stating that the order for her dismissal from service would be implemented immediately after the decision of the Munsiff on the application for temporary injunction.
N. Sinha for RR 1, 2 and 11 in CA 728 , M. I. Joseph CA 729 , P. P. Singh, C.A. 729, 728 and 730/78 A. Puddissery C.A. 730/75 and K. M. K. Nair for RR 1, 2, 11 and 12 in C.A. 728, RR.
A. Seyid Muhammed and K. R. Nambiar for the State of Kerala.
K. Keshava Pillai, Frank Anthony, M. K. D. Namboodiry, K. R. Choudhury, Baby Krishnan, B. Parthasarthi and Panduranga Rao for the Interveners.
The Provincial of the Congregation by virtue of her office as the President of the Managing Board, by order dated January 2, 1970, dismissed the appellant from service.
The Managing Board viewed the sending of these companymunications by the appellant without reference to it as an act of insubordination, and, therefore, decided to companyduct an enquiry against the appellant and she was suspended pending enquiry.
The Munsiff granted a temporary injunction, in the terms prayed for, which was subsequently companyfirmed.
It was stated that the Managing Board had after giving due numberice to the appellant, and on a careful companysideration of the enquiry report, and the findings thereon, found that the charges of misconduct were proved.
728 730 of 1975.
The number delivery of letters created a dead lock in the administration of the College.
K. Ramamurthy, Amicus Curiae, S. Balakrishnan, Amicus Curiae, Miss R. Vaigai and Lilly Kurian In person for the Appellant.
It is administered by a Managing Board, and the Provincial of the Congregation is its President.
The trial companyrt by its judgment dated December 6, 1972 dismissed the suits holding that the appellate power companyferred on the Vice Chancellor by cls.
Before the orders were companymunicated, the Management filed the suit O.S. No.
340 and 341/73 and A.S. No.
The Munsiff accordingly vacated the injunction with a direction that temporary injunction already issued will remain in force for two weeks to enable the appellant, if she wanted to move the Vice Chancellor and obtain from him a stay of the order of dismissal.
