STATE OF M.P. Vs. TRIVENI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the principal of the Article and Commerce College, Harda. By letter of 29 July 1967, the chairman of the governing body of the college asked the petitioner to explain four charges the details of which need rot be stated. After the petitioner gave the explanation, the Vice-chancellor. Saugar University, on 9 October 1967, sanctioned the suspension of the petitioner pending an enquiry by the governing body. The chairman of the governing-body on 11 October 1967 passed an order suspending the petitioner pending enquiry into the charges. This order recites that the petitioner will draw Rs. 300 per month, during the period of suspension. It may be mentioned that the petitioner as principal is employed on a salary of Rs. 600 per month. The order of 11 October 1967 passed by the chairman was approved by the governing' body on 14 October 1967. The petitioner by this petition calls into question the charges framed against him as also the order suspending him and reducing his emoluments to half of his normal salary during the period of suspension.

(2.) THE main contention raised by Sri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in the absence of any term in the service contract or statutory provision the petitioner cannot be suspended and deprived of his salary, Sri R. K. Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondents, concedes that there is no term in the service contract which deals with suspension. He, however, submits that the college code read along with Section 16 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1957, confers statutory authority on the governing body to suspend the petitioner and to deprive him of his pay in whole or in part during the period of suspension,

(3.) THE law regarding the right of the master to suspend his servant and to deprive him of his remuneration is well-settled. A master can refuse to take work from his servant and in that sense can suspend him during the pendency of an enquiry against him even though there is no specific provision in the contract of service. But the servant remains entitled to his full remuneration in spite of suspension unless there is some contractual term or statutory provision which enables the master to suspend the servant without payment of salary-Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Ors. v. Hotel Workers' Union 1959-II L. L. J. 544 ; Cajee (T.) v. Jormanik Sing (V.) and Anr. 1961-I L. L. J. 652; and Karur (R. P.) v. Union of India and Ors. 1966-II L. L. J. 164.