Madras High Court
Rev.N.Kaaviraj George vs Csi Coimbatore Diocese ... on 11 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-01-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A. No.752 of 2020
And
C.M.P.No.4626 of 2020
Rev.N.Kaaviraj George .. Appellant
vs.
1.CSI Coimbatore Diocese represented by its
Chairman/Bishop, CSI Diocesan Office,
No.256, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
(Being sued in representative capacity represented by
its Chairman/Bishop on behalf of the members of
CSI Coimbatore Diocese).
2.CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council represented by its
President/Bishop, CSI Diocesan Office,
No.256, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
(Being sued in representative capacity represented by
its President/Bishop on behalf of the members of
CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council).
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
3.CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee
represented by its Chairman/Bishop, CSI Diocesan Office,
No.256, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
(Being sued in representative capacity represented by
its Chairman/Bishop on behalf of the members of
CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Executive Committee).
4.CSI Coimbatore Diocese Ministerial Committee
represented by its Chairman/Bishop, CSI Diocesan Office,
No.256, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
(Being sued in representative capacity represented by
its Chairman/Bishop on behalf of the members of
CSI Coimbatore Diocese Ministerial Committee).
5.Enquiry Committee represented by its Convenor
Rev.Joshua Karamchand,
No.770, Puliakulam Road,
Pappanayakkan Palayam,
Coimbatore-641 037.
(Being sued in representative capacity represented by
its Convenor on behalf of the members of
Enlquiry Committee).
6.The Bishop,
CSI Coimbatore Diocese,
CSI Diocesan Office,
No.256, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
7.Mr.Timothy Ravinder
8.Mrs.Alice Adisayam
9.Rev.Arul Prakash
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
10.The Vice-President,
CSI Coimbatore Diocese,
CSI Diocesan Office,
No.256, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
11.The Honorary Secretary,
CSI Coimbatore Diocese,
CSI Diocesan Office,
No.256, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
12.The Honrary Treasurer,
CSI Coimbatore Diocese,
CSI Diocesan Office,
No.256, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore-641 018. .. Respondents
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1
of Code of Civil Procedure, against the order and decretal order dated
13.01.2020 passed in IA No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.475 of 2019 by the learned
I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Immanuel
For Respondents-1to4,6,7 &
10 to12 : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan for
Mr.S.Bharathirajan
For Respondents-5,8 & 9 : No Appearance
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The fair and decretal order dated 13.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.2
of 2019 in O.S.No.475 of 2019 by the learned I Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was instituted for
declaration and for permanent injunction.
3. Declaration was sought for with reference to several decisions
taken by the defendants and the Executive Committee, including the
decision taken by the Committee to suspend the appellant from the activities
of the Coimbatore Diocese. One of the declaration is that the order of
suspension dated 08.03.2019, suspending the appellant is null and void. In
fact, perusal of the order of suspension dated 08.03.2019 reveals that the
Executive Committee had taken a decision on 05.03.2019 and the
recommendations of the Executive Committee was accepted by the Bishop
and the Bishop passed an order of suspension in proceedings dated
08.03.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
4. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that
there are many corrupt activities going on in the administration of the
Church and the appellant is the person, who brought the corrupt activities to
the limelight and therefore, he is victimised. There are several allegations of
misappropriation of funds of the Church and the appellant has taken steps to
initiate action against all such corrupt activities in the administration of the
Church and that is the reason why actions are initiated against the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that there is no
provision for suspending the appellant under the constitution of the
Coimbatore Diocese and therefore, the very order of suspension issued by
the Bishop is unsustainable. In the absence of any provisions in the
constitution of the Coimbatore Diocese, the Bishop ought not to have issued
an order of suspension, placing the appellant under suspension from the
Church administration and its activities.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, contended that
the appellant is a person of integrity and the Bishop has no power to issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
an order of suspension under the provisions of constitution of Coimbatore
Diocese.
7. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent disputed the said
contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that it is only
an interim suspension issued pursuant to the resolution passed by the
Diocese Executive Committee. The Bishop issued an order of suspension,
accepting the resolution passed by the Executive Committee and therefore,
there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the Trial
Court. The Trial Court has considered the provisions of the constitution of
the Coimbatore Diocese and accordingly declined to grant the interim
injunction as prayed for in the interlocutory application. There is no
infirmity in respect of the findings of the Trial Court and thus the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that power to suspend
may be either express or implied. The power of appointment conferred
under the constitution would provide inherent power to the Appointing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
Authority to place the person under suspension, if allegations are of serious
misconduct or otherwise are initiated. In other words, power of appointment
provides an inherent power to suspend an employee, pending disposal of the
enquiry. Suspension is not a punishment. Suspension is required in order to
keep a person away from the activities and in order to conduct free and fair
enquiry. The very concept of suspension is derived only to run the
administration peacefully. Thus, the order of suspension cannot be
construed as a punishment. Accordingly, the appellant cannot take a stand
that the suspension is a punishment and to issue such an order, there is no
provision under the constitution of the Coimbatore Diocese. Even in the
absence of any provision, the Appointing Authority is empowered to
suspend a person pending enquiry.
9. In the present case, the order of suspension issued by the
Bishop in proceedings dated 08.03.2019 reveals that Rev. N.Kaviraj
George, the Presbyter-in-Charge of CSI Pandalur Pastorate in Nilgiris and
Convenor of the Hostels and Special Homes Committee and Creche
Committee of CSI Coimbatore Diocese for the triennium 2016-2019 has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
violated the discipline of the Church by interfering and indulging in an
issue, which has not been assigned to him, behaved in a manner which is
unwarranted, uncalled for and inconsistent with his calling and criminal
charges have been made against Rev. N.Kaviraj George, Presbyter, CSI
Coimbatore Diocese and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody
from 01.03.2019. Under those circumstances, the order of suspension was
issued by stating that the appellant was placed under suspension with
immediate effect and debarred from Church privileges, pending enquiry. He
was further temporarily inhibited from preaching and carrying out the
connected responsibilities in the Church of South India, until further orders
and during the period of the suspension, 50% of the salary has been paid as
a subsistence allowance.
10. The order of suspension reveals that the appellant was
placed under suspension pending enquiry as well as the criminal case.
Procedures are contemplated under the constitution of the Coimbatore
Diocese. Pending enquiry, 50% of the salary is ordered to be paid as
subsistence allowance. Thus, the said order cannot be construed as a final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
order in the disciplinary proceedings.
11. It is needless to state that the authorities competent are bound
to conduct an enquiry by following the procedures contemplated in the
constitution of Church of South India. However, this Court, in the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, cannot go into the merits of the issues raised in
the suit by the parties. All such issues are to be adjudicated on merits of the
documents as well as the evidences to be submitted by the respective
parties.
12. The suit is to be decided independently by the Trial Court
with reference to the issues to be framed. However, the Trial Court in the
present case declined to grant an order of interim injunction in view of the
fact that the Bishop has got powers to suspend the appellant, pending
enquiry.
13. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no
infirmity as such in respect of the findings of the Trial Court and the parties
have to adjudicate the matter in a full-fledged trial by adducing evidences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
and by producing documents.
14. This being the factum, the fair and decretal order dated
13.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.475 of 2019 by the
learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, stands confirmed.
Consequently, CMA No.752 of 2020 stands dismissed. However, the Trial
Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The parties to the suit are directed to cooperate for the early
disposal of the suit. No unnecessary adjournments are to be granted at the
instance of the parties for prolongation of the litigation. Even adjournments
on genuine grounds are to be granted only by recording the reasons.
15. Accordingly, CMA No.752 of 2020 stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
11-01-2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet: Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
To
The I Additional District Judge,
I Additional District Court,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.752 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
CMA No.752 of 2020
11-01-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
