S.D. Khare, J. - (1.) This is a defendants second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th September. 1968, passed by the learned Civil Judge. Unnao. slightly modifying the decree granted by the trial court and granting to the plaintiff a declaration that the order of suspension passed against him was invalid.
(2.) The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff (respondent) is a 'teacher in the College known as Dayanand V.D.T. Krishi Vidyalay (defendant appellant no. 1). The remaining defendant-appellants are the various office-bearers of that College. It was brought to the notice of the Managing Committee of the College that there were serious allegations against the plaintiff-respondent which required investigation. The Committee of Management, therefore, authorised the President to take action against the plaintiff-respondent under Regulation 39 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff-respondent was suspended by the President of the College by his order dated 7th February, 1965. and he was asked not to leave the station without permission. The contention of the plaintiff respondent was that the President of the institution could not have passed this order, and in any case, he could not do so without the permission of the Inspector of Schools. The Munsif (South). Unnao, decreed the plaintiff's suit, and directed the defendants to restore to. the plaintiff respondent the benefits taken away from him by the order of suspension and reinstate the plaintiff. On an appeal being filed the learned Civil Judge, Unnao, modified the decree passed by the Munsif (South). Unnao, and substituted the relief of injunction with the relief of declaration that the order suspending the plaintiff was invalid. The plaintiff was allowed three-fourths costs of the appeal.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of suspension as a result of which the plaintiff respondent became entitled to receive only half his salary from the date of suspension till further orders amounted to diminution in emoluments within the meaning of section 16-G (3) (a) of the Act.;