JUDGMENT : S.R. SINGH, J. 1. Vasu Deo Mishra, Higher Secondary School Ashoka Nagar Kanpur is a recognised and aided non-government Higher Secondary School, affairs of which are managed by a Committee of Management of which Petitioner no. 2 is the Manager. 2. Sri Narendra Kumar Sengar was appointed Head Master of the School in the year 1977. It appears that he was caught in a web of controversy on many counts which require to be delineated in the succeeding paras of the judgment. In the First instance, the Committee of Management had interdicted about the school building being used by the University of Kanpur to held its examination, but the Respondent No. 5, it is alleged, allowed the premises to be used by the University for holding its Examination regardless of the prohibition of the Committee of Management and it is alleged, he realised a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the University and the students but did not deposit the same in the school funds. It is also alleged in the petition that Sri N.K. Sengar is facing trial in the criminal case for the offences u/s 395, 425, 147, 504 and 506 IPC in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Aba Purwa Kanpur Nagar. Further allegations in the petition are that a Sub Audit Team appointed by Education Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government on inspection of the School records, detected financial irregularities and misappropriation and mis-utilisation of funds etc. For all these reasons, the Committee of Management of the Institution passed a resolution in its meeting held on 17-9-1989 to launch disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 5. He was placed under suspension pursuant to the said resolution by order dated 18-9-1989 but as stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the suspension was not approved of by the District Inspector of Schools and accordingly, it stood lapsed by efflux of time i.e. 60 days period as stipulated under the provisions of Section 16-G (7) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921. The suspension of the Respondent No. 5 having automatically lapsed by efflux of time the Committee of Management resolved and prohibited the Respondent No. 5, by means of the letter dated 17-11-1989 (Annexure 3) from entering the school premises except in connection with the disciplinary enquiry which was going on against him and that too with prior permission of the Management. However, it was stated in categorical terms in the said letter dated 17-11-89 that the Respondent no 2 would be paid his salary on month to month basis. These measures, it is as alleged, were taken in the interest of the institution in view of the apprehension looming large that the Respondent no 5 might temper with the records and suborn the evidence having bearing on the disciplinary proceedings under-way against him. It is also alleged that the enquiry was concluded exparte by reason of the fact that the Respondent No. 5 did not participate in the enquiry qua the fact that opportunity was afforded to him, and the papers forwarded to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission soliciting its approval u/s 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982 for dismissed of the Respondent No. 5 from service, in pursuance of the resolution dated 10-1-90. The papers are said to have been forwarded to the Commission under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (procedure for approval of arrangement) Regulation, 1985 on 23-1-1990. It would transpire that in view of strained relations between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5, an incident took place in the college premises on 27-1-1989 whereupon a First Information Report was lodged at the police station concerned and consequently, proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC were Initiated An order of attachment of school property was passed by the Magistrate on 17-1-1990. The said order was challenged in the High Court by means of a petition u/s 482 CrPC. The petition was allowed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 25-4-1990 and the Magistrate's order dated 17-1-90 was quashed. While quashing the proceedings u/s 145/146 CrPC the High Court, it is alleged, made certain observations adverting therein to the question as to whether the Headmaster had resumed his duties after suspension period or not. The Respondent No. 5, feeling aggrieved by the High Court's order went up to the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave petition. While quashing the proceedings u/s 145/146 CrPC the High Court, it is alleged, made certain observations adverting therein to the question as to whether the Headmaster had resumed his duties after suspension period or not. The Respondent No. 5, feeling aggrieved by the High Court's order went up to the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave petition. The Supreme Court by its order dated 13-3-90, affirmed the Court's order to the extent it related to quashing of proceedings u/s 145/146 CrPC but it set aside that part of the order which pertained to the resumption of duties by 5th respondent after the suspension period, relegating it to the appropriate forum to decide the controversy as and when such controversy comes up before such appropriate forum. The Distt. Inspector of Schools considering himself to be the appropriate authority/forum, issued an order on 1-2-91 directing the Manager not to take work of the office of Head of the Institution from any person other than the Respondent No. 5, Narendra Kumar Sengar. The same very direction was repeated by the inspector be meant of the letter dated 30-6-92. It is the order contained in the letter dated 30-6-92 which is sought to be quashed by means of the petition in hand. 3. I have heard Sri J.N. Tiwari, Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri R.K. Jain learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5, N.K. Sengar. 4. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned order basically on the ground that the Management of the Institution has a right to take or not to take work from the Respondent No. 5 for whose dismissal from service, by way of punishment, papers had been forwarded to the Secondary Education Services Commission for approval u/s 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982, and so long as the management of the institution is willing to pay-full salary to the Respondent no 5, the Distt. Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to issue another or direction obligating on the Petitioners to take work from the Respondent No. 5 and restraining them from taking work of office of Head of the Institution from any other teacher. Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to issue another or direction obligating on the Petitioners to take work from the Respondent No. 5 and restraining them from taking work of office of Head of the Institution from any other teacher. Sri J.N. Tiwari contended before me that there is no such provision either under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921 or in the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 empowering the Distt. Inspector of Schools to issue any such direction as is contained in the impugned order dated 30-6-1992. The contention of Sri J N. Tiwari is that with the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Selection Boards Act 1982, the Distt. Inspector of Schools has ceased to have any role to play in matter like the one in hand and it is now the commission which can give appropriate advice to the management. 5. Sri R.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 refuted the submissions made by Sri Tiwari and contended that the suspension of the Respondent No. 5 having ceased to be operative automatically by operation of law according to Section 16-G (7) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 in view of its non-approval within a period of sixty days, the Respondent No. 5 is entitled to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions vested in his under the provisions of Regulations made under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act. 6. Having devoted my anxious consideration to the above submissions made by the learned Counsel, I veer round to the opinion that the direction issued by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 30th June, 1992 do not have the taint of being without jurisdiction. The Respondent No. 5 being head of the Institution is entitled to exercise powers and perform duties and functions attached to the office of the head by virtue of Regulations 9 and 10 of Chapter I of the regulations made under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Respondent No. 5 being head of the Institution is entitled to exercise powers and perform duties and functions attached to the office of the head by virtue of Regulations 9 and 10 of Chapter I of the regulations made under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regulation 9 stipulates that Head master or the Principal shall perform all the duties as appertained to his post and be or she as the case may be, shall be responsible to the Committee of Management through the Manager of the Institution for the due discharge of such duties for which he shall have the necessary powers. The powers of the Head Master or the Principal are enumerated in Regulation 10. Regulation 12 provides that Head of the Institution shall be the channel of correspondence between the Staff of the Institution and the management. 7. In a democratic polity as ours governed by the rule of law, the Committee of Management of the Institution which is a statutory body, cannot be allowed to work in a manner contrary to law. The District Inspector of Schools is admittedly vested with the powers to attest the signatures of the Head of Institution for purposes of payment of salaries of teachers and other employees under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1977. It is not disputed that the salary bill is submitted in the office of the District Inspector of Schools under' the Joint signatures of the Manager and the Head of the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools, therefore, has an implied power to issue instructions to the Management to take the work of the office of the Head Master only from the recognised Head of the Institution and not from any other person. I, therefore, do not feel persuaded to accept the contention of Sri J.N. Tiwari that the directions given by the District Inspector of Schools to the Management vide impugned order dated 30-6-92 are without jurisdiction. 8. The question can be examined from another angle also. There is a catena of decisions to the effect that suspension is a temporary deprivation of office, position or ones privileges. 8. The question can be examined from another angle also. There is a catena of decisions to the effect that suspension is a temporary deprivation of office, position or ones privileges. In Bostan Deep See Fishing and Ice Company v. Ansoil 1888 CD 339, it was held that when a man is suspended from the office he holds, it is merely a direction that as long as he holds the office and until he is legally dismissed, he must not to anything in the discharge of the duties of the office. So long as the Respondent No. 5, was under lawful suspension, he was not entitled to perform duties and exercise the powers attached to the office of the Head Master of the Institution but as soon as the suspension came to an end, his right to exercise powers and perform duties and functions attached to the office stood revived. Accordingly, if the contention of Sri J.N. Tiwari is accepted, it would lead to the conclusion that though there exists no lawful suspension, the Petitioner would still be treated to be under suspension, which in my opinion would abort the very object of sub-Section (7) of Section 16-G which provides that 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 such order. It is well settled that what cannot be done directly, must not be allowed to be achieved indirectly. Therefore, at the risk of repetition I must say that if the contentions of Sri J.N. Tiwari are accepted then the object and purpose of the provisions contained in sub-Section (7) of Section 16-G would stand frustrated. 9. Even otherwise the contention of Sri J.N. Tiwari, if accepted, would run contrary to the public policy. In my opinion it would be against public policy to pay salary to a person out of Public exchequer without taking any work from him. 9. Even otherwise the contention of Sri J.N. Tiwari, if accepted, would run contrary to the public policy. In my opinion it would be against public policy to pay salary to a person out of Public exchequer without taking any work from him. True that the Respondent No. 5 is facing disciplinary proceeding and the matter is said to be pending before the Secondary Education Services Commission Act 1921 for approval of the Committee's resolution for dismissal of the Respondent No. 5 but that in my opinion is no ground to prevent Respondent No. 5 to discharge duties attached to his office particularly because his suspension was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools and it stood lapsed automatically after' expiry of sixty days by virtue of sub-Section (7) of Section 16-G. In this connection, it may quote the observations of the Supreme Court in Chinna Seni v. Government of Tamil Nadu which has a bearing on the question under discussion in the present case. In a democratic polity as ours, bureaucracy works as a pivot for running the administration. So far as state is concerned, the matter of polity and ultimate responsibility for running the administration is obviously on the apex body, council of ministers and Executive Head-Governor, it cannot be lost sight of that every public officer is a trustee and in respect of the office he holds and the salary and other benefits which he draws, he is obliged to render appropriate services to the State. The scheme postulates that every public officer has to be given some posting commensurate to his status and circumstances should be so created that he would be functioning so as to render commensurate service in lieu of the benefits received by him from the State. If an officer does not behave as required of him under the law, he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue an officer against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the consolidated funds. It is with this view that we had called upon the Respondent-Government to give the Appellant a proper posting and extract work from him. Since the State Government has not done the needful it has become necessary for the Court to interfere. It is with this view that we had called upon the Respondent-Government to give the Appellant a proper posting and extract work from him. Since the State Government has not done the needful it has become necessary for the Court to interfere. The facts of the present case may not be very much identical to the facts of the case before the Supreme Court but it cannot be gain-said that the post of Head of the Institution is of pivotal importance in the life of an Institution. Discipline and the academic temper of the institution depends to a great extent upon the Head of the Institution. The institution being within the purview of payment of Salary Act 1971, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools as an interference would run counter to the public policy discussed above. 10. The contention of Sri J.N. Tiwari that with the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982, the District Inspector of Schools has ceased to have any role to play in a matter like the one involved in the present case is not acceptable to me. The role of the Commission under the said Act is confined to selection of suitable candidate) for appointment as teachers and to exercise supervisory powers u/s 21 of the Act 5 of 1982 in disciplinary matters. In fact Section 21 of the said Act is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 16-G (3) of the Act. In other respects, the super-vision and control vests with the District Inspector of Schools and the authorities empowers to appoint the authorised Controller, in accordance with the provisions of Section 16-D of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act 1921 or Prabandh Sanchalak under the payment of Salaries Act, 1971. 11. Having regard to the discussions aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine.