1977 (2) TMI 131 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Order dated 24th December 1969.
2. Validity of the Order of suspension dated 21st May 1970.
3. Entitlement of the respondent to more than the subsistence allowance paid during the suspension period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order dated 24th December 1969:
The respondent argued that the order dated 24th December 1969, which altered his terms and conditions of service, was invalid as it conflicted with section 52, sub-section (1) of the Act of 1969. The court assumed, for the purpose of the appeal, that the respondent's case was governed by sub-section (1) and not sub-section (4) of section 52, thereby rendering the order dated 24th December 1969 invalid to the extent it altered the respondent's terms and conditions. However, the court found that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to make the order of suspension independent of the order dated 24th December 1969, under Statute 24(ii) and section 13, sub-section (4) of the Act of 1969.

2. Validity of the Order of suspension dated 21st May 1970:
The respondent challenged the suspension order on the grounds that it was made under an invalid order (dated 24th December 1969) and that there was no emergency justifying immediate action under section 13, sub-section (4). The court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to suspend the respondent under Statute 24(ii) and section 13, sub-section (4). The court also noted that the respondent did not challenge the existence of an emergency in his writ petition, and thus, the suspension order was valid. The court emphasized that the power to suspend was implicit in the Vice-Chancellor's responsibility for maintaining discipline under section 13, sub-section (6).

3. Entitlement to more than subsistence allowance:
The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to receive anything more than the subsistence allowance paid during the suspension period. The court reiterated the principle that suspension temporarily suspends the relationship of master and servant, meaning the employer is not bound to pay full salary unless provided by the contract or rules. The University had adopted the rules relating to Civil Servants of the State of Jammu & Kashmir for subsistence allowance, which was formally approved by the University Council. Thus, the respondent was only entitled to the subsistence allowance as per these rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the suspension order dated 21st May 1970 and held that the respondent was not entitled to anything more than the subsistence allowance paid during the suspension period. The appeal was allowed.