JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute relates to the Headmaster of the Pyare Lal Shastri Junior High School, Jajau, district Agra. This school is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. One Vidhi Chand Sharma was the Headmaster of the institution. By an order dated 18th January, 1989, the Manager of the institution suspended Shri Vidhi Chand Sharma and submitted a charge-sheet to him. Against this order of suspension, Vidhi Chand Sharma filed a representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the Officer). The Officer by his order dated 23rd January, 1989, set aside the order of suspension passed by the Manager and further directed that the suspension order shall not be recognised by the Officer. It is this order dated 23rd January, 1989, which has been challenged by the present management by means of the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner being the Appointing Authority of the Headmaster of the Junior High School has a right to suspend the Headmaster pending enquiry in case there are certain charges found against him. His further case is that there is no provision either under the Act or under the Rules which entitles the Officer to approve or disapprove the order of suspension passed by the Committee of Management. 3. The U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 provides for constitution of a Board of Basic Education. The function of the Board, as laid down in Section 4 of the Act, is to organise, co-ordinate and control the imparting of basic education and teacher's training therefore in the State, to raise its standard and to correlate it with the system of education as a whole in the State. Under Section 19 of the Act, the State Government has been empowered to make rules and, in particular, relating to the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the posts of officers, teachers and other employees enumerated under Section 6 of the Act. So far as the teachers are concerned, rules have been framed laying down their conditions of service. These rules are called. The Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. So far as the teachers are concerned, rules have been framed laying down their conditions of service. These rules are called. The Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. In these Rules, the appointment of a Headmaster or assistant teacher has to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. The material provisions in regard to the appointment under these Rules are that the post has to be advertised, persons to be appointed must possess minimum qualifications and management has to constitute a Selection Committee, as provided the rules. The recommendation of the Selection Committee has to be approved by the District Basic Education Officer and, thereafter, appointment has to be made in accordance with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. 4. Rule 15 of these Rules lays down that no Headmaster or assistant teacher of a recognised school 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 District Basic Education Officer. 5. Rule 16 further provides that in respect of disciplinary proceedings and the punishment to be inflicted in such proceedings a Headmaster or assistant teacher, as the case may be, of a recognised school shall be governed by the Rules applicable to Headmaster and assistant teacher of a Basic School established or maintained by the Board The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 applies to the Headmaster and assistant teachers of a basic school established or maintained by the Board; hence these rules are also applicable to the basic schools (Junior High Schools) other than those maintained by the Board. 6. Rule 4 of the Staff Rules of 1973 regulates suspension. It provides as under: "4(1). A person against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated or its proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry, in the discretion of the appointing authority. (2) An employee of the Board who is placed under suspension shall be granted subsistence allowance during the suspension period at such rate, and subject to such rules as are applicable to a servant of the Uttar Pradesh Government, from time to time, and the said rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Board." 7. (2) An employee of the Board who is placed under suspension shall be granted subsistence allowance during the suspension period at such rate, and subject to such rules as are applicable to a servant of the Uttar Pradesh Government, from time to time, and the said rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Board." 7. Under the above Rule 4, it has been clearly provided that a person against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated or its proceeding may be placed under suspension pending conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 4, however, only lays down as to what subsistence allowance will be payable to the said suspended employee. There is no other restriction placed on the power of suspension by the Managing Committee. There is no provision which entitles the Officer to examine the validity of a suspension order. 8. The Scheme of the U.P. Basic Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder provides consequently that the Committee of Management of the institution has the right to take action against the Headmaster or assistant teacher only in accordance with the above mentioned rules. So far as an action of discharge, removal, dismissal from service or reduction in rank or diminution in emoluments against the Headmaster or assistant teacher is concerned, it can only be taken with the prior approval of the Officer under Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules, but there is no impediment in the power of the management to pass a suspension order pending enquiry. This does not require any prior approval nor any power has been given to the Officer to revoke a suspension order. 9. The U.P. Intermediate Education Act established a Board of High School and Intermediate Education to regulate and supervise the system of High School and Intermediate Education in Uttar Pradesh. Under this Act, certain provisions are made regulating the terms and conditions of the teachers in the High Schools and Intermediate Colleges in the State Section 16-G of the Act provided the conditions of services of Heads of the institution, teachers and other employees of the High School and Intermediate Colleges, sub-section (5) of this section empowers the management to suspend a Head of the institution if certain conditions are made out. Similarly, sub-section (6) provides that if a suspension order has been passed by a Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the Inspector within seven days from the date of the order of suspension. The said report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and be accompanied by all relevant documents. Sub-section (7) of Section 16-G, which is relevant for this case, provides the period during which the suspension order can remain effective. It is quoted below: "16-G(7). No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, or as the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. 10. From the above Sub-section (7) of Section 16-G, it is clear that in so far as the teachers of High School and Intermediate Colleges are concerned, the order of suspension cannot remain in force for more than sixty days unless it is approved by the District Inspector of Schools. It is significant to note that so far as the teachers of the basic schools are concerned, who are governed by the U.P. Basic Education Act, no such condition has been laid in so far as the suspension order is concerned. It appears that the District Basic Education Officer while passing the impugned order dated 23rd January, 1989, had this provision in mind and, consequently, he set aside the suspension order. This could not have been done in so far as the teachers of the basic schools are concerned. The suspension order passed by a management against a Headmaster or assistant teacher of a basic school is to continue at the discretion of the Committee of Management during the pendency of an enquiry. 11. In view of the above, we are clearly of the opinion that the District Basic Education Officer acted wholly without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 23rd January, 1989, and setting aside the suspension order against the Headmaster of the institution. 12. 11. In view of the above, we are clearly of the opinion that the District Basic Education Officer acted wholly without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 23rd January, 1989, and setting aside the suspension order against the Headmaster of the institution. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, supported the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer on the ground that since the suspension resulted in diminution of emoluments, consequently, prior approval was required of the District Basic Education Officer under Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules. In our opinion, this submission is without substance. Prior approval is only required when there is a diminution in emoluments by way of punishment and not otherwise. Rule 3 of the Staff Rules provides various kinds of punishment which an appointing authority can impose on the officers, teachers and other employees of the Board. They are as under: "3. The appointing authority may for good and sufficient reasons, impose the following penalties upon the officers, teachers and employees of the Board: (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of the increments including stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iii) Reduction to lower post of time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (vi) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Board by negligence or breach of orders; (v) Removal from the service of the Board which does not qualify him from future employment." 13. It is only when one of the punishment is awarded to a Headmaster or a teacher which, ultimately, amounts to diminution in emoluments then a prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer is required under Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules and not otherwise. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and another, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 787. Hon'ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the effect of a suspension order. It held that the suspension pending enquiry must be distinguished from suspension as a punishment, which is a different matter altogether depending upon the rules in that behalf. It was further held that on general principles, therefore, the Government like any other employer, would have a right to suspend any public servant in one or two ways. It may suspend any public servant pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal proceedings; this may be called interim suspension. It was further held that on general principles, therefore, the Government like any other employer, would have a right to suspend any public servant in one or two ways. It may suspend any public servant pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal proceedings; this may be called interim suspension. The Government may also proceed to hold a departmental enquiry and after the employee is found guilty, order suspension as a punishment if the rules so permit. This will be a suspension as a penalty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, consequently, drew a clear distinction between a suspension pending enquiry and the award of suspension as a penalty, namely, as a punishment. In The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The State of Maharashtra and others, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1466, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-- The order of suspension does not put an end to a service. Suspension merely suspends the claim to salary. During suspension there is suspension allowance. The real effect of the order of suspension is that though the civil servant continues to be a member of the service he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance which is less than his salary. The above mentioned principles applicable to Government servants would apply to the order of suspension passed under Rule 4 of the Staff Rules against the Headmaster or an assistant teacher of a basic school. The suspension order passed under Rule 4, is only a suspension order pending an enquiry or during when the enquiry is contemplated. The order of suspension does not put an end to service. It only suspends the claim to salary during the enquiry. It is not a final order of punishment contemplated under Rule 3 of the Staff Rules 1973. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, that Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules will be applicable in the case of a suspension order is without substance. We, consequently, hold that in the case of a suspension order passed against a Headmaster or an assistant teacher of a basic school, no prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer is required nor it is necessary for the Committee of Management to send the suspension order for approval subsequently to the District Basic Education Officer. We, consequently, hold that in the case of a suspension order passed against a Headmaster or an assistant teacher of a basic school, no prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer is required nor it is necessary for the Committee of Management to send the suspension order for approval subsequently to the District Basic Education Officer. The District Basic Education Officer has no power to adjudge upon the validity of a suspension order. 14. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 23rd January, 1989, is hereby quashed.