JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - 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. 4. Before I proceed to deal with this point I may dispose of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the President of the College was not authorised to suspend the plaintiff-respondent. 4. Before I proceed to deal with this point I may dispose of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the President of the College was not authorised to suspend the plaintiff-respondent. There is absolutely no force in this contention. The lower appellate court has very rightly held that the President of the institution had such power because the same had been delegated to him by the Managing Committee by means of a resolution (Ex. A-6). Regulation 39 of the Regulations framed under the Act reads as follows: "The Committee of Management may in its discretion or on the recommendation of the inquiring agency, suspend pending enquiry and final orders any employee if the allegations are serious enough and may lead to his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The power of suspension may in the case of a teacher be exercised by the Manager if it has been delegated to him by the Committee under the rules of the institution." 5. After the delegation of Dowers by the Committee of Management, the President was fully entitled to pass the order of suspension. 6. Now coming to the main point which has to be disposed of in this appeal a reference to section 16-G (3) (a) and (b) of the Act is necessary. It reads as follows: "(3) (a) No Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments, or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. The decision of the Inspector shall be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulations. (b) The Inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or enhance the punishment or approve or disapprove of the notice for termination of service proposed by the management: Provided that in the cases of punishment. before passing orders, the Inspector shall give an opportunity to the Principal, the Headmaster or the teacher to show cause within a fortnight of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted." 7. Reading clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of section 16-G of the Act it becomes evident that the prior approval of the Inspector has to be obtained where any diminution in emoluments has to take place by way of punishment. Reading clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of section 16-G of the Act it becomes evident that the prior approval of the Inspector has to be obtained where any diminution in emoluments has to take place by way of punishment. When any such punishment is proposed, the Inspector has to give an opportunity to the teacher against whom action is proposed to be taken to show cause why the proposed punishment be not inflicted. In other words, the stage at which the Inspector is required to be consulted is after the enquiring officer has submitted his report and the Committee of Management has tentatively taken a decision to inflict one of the punishments mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 16-G of the Act. 8. The regulations framed under the Act make that position abundantly clear. In this connection Regulations Nos. 31, 37 and 41 to 45 may be seen. They are being reproduced below: "31. Punishment of an employee that would require the prior approval of the Inspector or Regional Inspectress, may take any of the following forms: (a) Dismissal (b) Removal or discharge (c) Reduction in rank (d) Diminution in emoluments." "37. Soon after the report of the proceedings and recommendation from the inquiring authority are received. the Committee of Management shall after notice to employee meet to consider the report of the proceedings and recommendation made and take decision on the case. The employee shall be allowed if he so desires, to appear before the Committee in person to state his case and answer any question that may be put to him by any member present at the meeting. The Committee shall then send a complete report together with all connected papers to the Inspector or Regional Inspectress, as the case may be. for approval of action proposed by it". "41. The employee. under suspension. shall be paid a subsistence allowance of an amount equal to half his pay. 42. A suspended employee if reinstated. shall be paid the difference between his salary and subsistence allowance already received by him. 43. A suspended employee may.in the discretion of the punishing authority. be punished with effect from the day of suspension or any later date. 44. shall be paid a subsistence allowance of an amount equal to half his pay. 42. A suspended employee if reinstated. shall be paid the difference between his salary and subsistence allowance already received by him. 43. A suspended employee may.in the discretion of the punishing authority. be punished with effect from the day of suspension or any later date. 44. The Inspector or Regional Inspectress shall communicate his/her decision to the management within six weeks of the receipt of its proposal in complete form for action mentioned in sub-section (3) (a) of- section 16-G of the Act. If incomplete papers are received from the management the approving officer shall require it to resubmit its proposal in complete form within two weeks.. and the period of six weeks prescribed in the regulation shall be reckoned from the date on which complete papers are received by the approving officer. These papers shall either be sent by registered post or by special messenger. 45. The Committee shall implement the decision of the Inspector or Regional Inspectress within two weeks of its intimation, provided that of the President of the Regional Appellate Committee may on representation, by the Management, stay pending consideration of an appeal, the payment of balance of salary of the employee for the period of suspension, if any." 9. It is clear from a perusal of Regulation 31 that diminution in emoluments is one of the punishments which may be given to an employee. A punishment can be given only after proper enquiry. Mere suspension by no means amounts to punishment. 10. Regulations 37 and 41 to 45 provide for the method of enquiry. After the suspension order has been passed. Regulation 41 provides that the employee under suspension shall be paid a subsistence allowance of an amount equal to half his pay. Regulation 42 lays down that a suspended employee. after reinstatement, shall be paid the difference between his salary and the subsistence allowance already paid to him. Regulation 43 lavs down that a suspended employee may in the discretion of the punishing authority, be punished with effect from the day of suspension or any later date. Then-comes Regulation 44. which lavs down how the Inspector shall communicate his decision. Regulation 45 provides how the decision will be implemented. Regulation 43 lavs down that a suspended employee may in the discretion of the punishing authority, be punished with effect from the day of suspension or any later date. Then-comes Regulation 44. which lavs down how the Inspector shall communicate his decision. Regulation 45 provides how the decision will be implemented. From a reading of the various Regulations under the headings, punishment, enquiry and suspension; it is clear that mere suspension of an employee does not amount to punishment within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 16-G of the Act. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to the case of Roman Prefecture v. Deputy Director of Education. (1970 All LJ 1402). It was held in that case that where the services of a probationer are being terminated, compliance of sub-section (3) of section 16-G of the Act shall be necessary. I respectfully agree, with the opinion expressed in that case. The facts of the present case are altogether different, because here the question arises regarding a stage much earlier to the one when it can be possible to serve a notice of the intended or proposed punishment. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the order of suspension of the plaintiff has also contravened Regulation 14, (c) and (e) of the Scheme of Administration. Chapter I. The provision reads as follows: "The main principle on which approval to a scheme of Administration shall be accorded would be that it should conform to the following rules: .... .... .... .... (c) All decisions shall be taken by the Committee of Management and powers of delegation, if any. shall be limited and clearly defined. .... .... .... .... (e) Distribution of powers shall be well balanced and dominance of individual and sectional interests shall be avoided............" 13. It is contended that the delegation of power by the Commit- tee of Management to the President to suspend the plain tiff-respondent was against the spirit of these Regulations. In my opinion there is no force in this contention. I have already reproduced Regulation 39 framed under the Act and that clearly authorised the Committee of Management to delegate to the Manager its power to suspend. According to the finding of the court below the President of the institution was required to do the work of Manager. 14. The appeal is allowed. I have already reproduced Regulation 39 framed under the Act and that clearly authorised the Committee of Management to delegate to the Manager its power to suspend. According to the finding of the court below the President of the institution was required to do the work of Manager. 14. The appeal is allowed. The suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.