Suspension pending disciplinary enquiry limits pay to subsistence allowance where university rules validly confer suspension power.

A university statute, as modified to conform with the governing Act, was treated as empowering the Vice-Chancellor to suspend a teacher pending disciplinary enquiry, including in cases of misconduct, insubordination, inefficiency, unsatisfactory performance, or emergency requiring immediate action. The Court held that this suspension power was consistent with the continuing service regime, so the suspension order was valid. It further held that a valid suspension temporarily suspends the reciprocal obligations of service and pay, leaving the teacher entitled only to the subsistence allowance provided by the governing rules and not to full salary for the suspension period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Vice-Chancellor had authority to suspend the teacher pending disciplinary enquiry; (ii) whether, during the period of valid suspension, the teacher was entitled to salary beyond the subsistence allowance paid.

Issue (i): whether the Vice-Chancellor had authority to suspend the teacher pending disciplinary enquiry.

Analysis: The continuation of the old statutes under the new university regime, together with the power conferred on the Special Officer and approved by the Chancellor to modify the statutes for conformity with the 1969 Act, justified the insertion of the provision empowering the Vice-Chancellor to place a teacher under suspension for misconduct, insubordination, inefficiency, or unsatisfactory performance. The power of the Vice-Chancellor under the Act also extended to taking necessary action in an emergency calling for immediate action, and suspension was held to be within that wide administrative power. The argument that the teacher's service terms under the earlier arrangement protected him from such suspension was rejected, because the modified statute and the statutory emergency power could operate consistently with the continuing service provisions.

Conclusion: The suspension order was valid and was within the Vice-Chancellor's authority.

Issue (ii): whether, during the period of valid suspension, the teacher was entitled to salary beyond the subsistence allowance paid.

Analysis: A valid suspension temporarily suspends the obligations of service and pay in a contract of employment, and any entitlement during that period depends on the governing rules. Since the respondent was validly suspended and the University had only provided for subsistence allowance in accordance with its adopted practice and regulations, no claim for full salary or any amount beyond the allowance could be sustained. The Court also accepted that the amount actually paid conformed to the applicable practice governing such allowance.

Conclusion: The teacher was not entitled to anything more than the subsistence allowance already paid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the suspension was upheld, and the respondent's monetary claim for the suspension period failed beyond the subsistence allowance paid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or validly made university statute confers power to suspend an employee pending enquiry, a valid suspension suspends the reciprocal obligations of service and salary, leaving the employee entitled only to such subsistence allowance as the governing rules provide.

---