S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. The petitioner who is a confirmed Head Master of Gulab Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Samaithan, Bhiti, district Gorakhpur was put under suspension pending contemplated disciplinary enquiry. Feeling aggrieved, ^he |has approached this Court seeking the quashing of the aforesaid order. 2. Parties have exchanged their affidavits. 3. Considering the nature of controversy involved in this case, the learned Counsel for the parties have jointly requested that this case be disposed of finally. Accepting the request, I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. 4. Gulab Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Samaithan, Bhiti, district Gorakhpur is a Junior High School which stands recognised under the provisions of the U. P. Basic Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a confirmed Head Master of the aforesaid institution. It is also not disputed that the com mittee of management with Sri Sesh Nath Singh as its Manager elected on 7-2-1993 had been duly reconised by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as a validly elected committee of management for running and managing the aforesaid institution. It is further not Disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order of recognition granted by the competent authority has not been upset or disturbed in any manner and the aforesaid committee of management continues to be in effective control of the institution. It is apparent from the record that the committee of management with Shesh Nath Singh and its Manager had passed a resolu tion on 1-5- 1995 whereunder a decision was taken to place the petitioner under suspension and for initiating disciplinary enquiry against him. Pur suant to the aforesaid decision of the committee of management, the Manager had issued the order dated 3-5-1994 whereafter on 16-5-1994 a charge-sheet has also been submitted which was served on the petitioner. The disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner however has not proceeded further. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties have levelled allegations and counter allegations against the parties represented by them accusing each other for the delay in completing the disciplinary enquiry. 6. The disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner however has not proceeded further. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties have levelled allegations and counter allegations against the parties represented by them accusing each other for the delay in completing the disciplinary enquiry. 6. The petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order of suspension is manifestly illegal as a perusal of the same indicates that it does not refer to any pending or contemplated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in the absence whereof no teacher can be put under suspen sion. This submission is totally misconceived and baseless. The impugned order of suspension clearly indicates that the petitioner was being put under suspension pending contemplated disciplinary enquiry against him. In this connection, it may be noticed that the Rule 16 of the U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978 provides that in respect of disciplinary proceedings for the punishment to be inflicted in such proceedings a Head Master or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, of a recognised school shall be governed by the Rules applicable to Head Master and Assistant Teacher of a basic school established or maintained by the Board. It is therefore, obvious that the U. P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 become applicable and as provided for under Rule 4 of the said Rules, a person against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority. The resolution of the committee of management dated 1-5-1994 clearly indicates that a decision to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had been taken and in accordance with the said decision, the Manager/secretary had issued the order dated 3-5-1994 pointing out that the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was under contemplation. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any such defect as pointed out and the submis sion made in this regard is not accepted at all. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further urged that there was a dispute in regard to the validity of the election of the committee of management with Shesh Nath Singh as Manager and a suit had also been filed in this regard being suit No. 17 of 1994 which is still pending. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further urged that there was a dispute in regard to the validity of the election of the committee of management with Shesh Nath Singh as Manager and a suit had also been filed in this regard being suit No. 17 of 1994 which is still pending. Suffice it to say in this connection that the order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 2-7-1993 upholding the election dated 7-2-1993 wherein the committee of management with Shesh Nath Singh as its Manager had been elected continues to be in force and so long as this order is not up set or disturbed in any manner by any civil court of competent jurisdiction, the committee of management which had been recognised by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for purposes of running and managing the institution in question and exercising the jurisdiction which stands vested in a duly elected committee of management will continue to exercise the said jurisdic tion. The mere fact that the controversy in regard to the validity of the election has been raised and is subject-matter of the suit is not enough. In the absence of any order by any civil court of competent jurisdiction to the contrary the committee of management duly recognised by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as having been validly elected will continue to run and manage the institution and can exercise the rights vested in such a committeee of management. However, any such action of the committee of management during the pendency of the suit will be subject to the final result of the suit and a decision in the suit wherein such a controversy is raised will be binding the parties impleaded therein as defendants. In case, however, the State of U. P. on which the liability for the payment of salary stands fastened under the provisions of U. P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 has not been impleaded as a defendant in the suit, in that event, even the decision in the suit will not be binding on the State. 8. A copy of the plaint of the suit referred to in Paragraph 5 of the writ petition has been filed as Annexure-C. A-3 to the counter-affidavit. 8. A copy of the plaint of the suit referred to in Paragraph 5 of the writ petition has been filed as Annexure-C. A-3 to the counter-affidavit. A perusal of the aforesaid plaint shows that the plaintiffs of the suit have not impleaded the State as a defendant in the suit even though as provided for under Section 10 of the U. P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, the State is liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of the institution of the category in which the institution in question falls. The plaintiff Jagat Narain and others in the aforesaid suit have impleaded the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhi kari, Gorakhpur as defendant No. 1 and have sought for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendants IInd set were the valid members of Janta Shiksha Sansthan, Samaithan, Bhiti, district Oorakhpur and the committee of management sleeted by them only was entitled to run and manage the Gulab Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Samai than, Bhiti, district Gorakhpur. They have further prayed for a declaration that the defendants No. 3 and 4 viz. Shesh Nath Singh and Param Hans Singh were not the members of the society running and managing the insti tution and had no right to interfere in the management of the aforesaid Junior High School. These plaintiffs have further prayed for a decree of a permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants No. 3 and 4 or the alleged members pointed out by them from interfereing in the manage ment of the aforesaid Junior High School. They had also prayed for a decree regarding the cancellation of the order passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 21-7-1993. It may be noticed that the order dated 2-7-1993 passed by the District Basic Education Officer had been communicated vide the letter dated 21-7-1993. 9. As has already been noticed hereinabove, there is no such order in existence which in any manner has the effect of nullifying the order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari recognising the committee of management with Shesh Nath Singh as Manager. So long as the order dated 2-7-1993 communicated on 21-7-1993 holds good, the committee of management recognised thereunder continues to be and has to be deemed to be vested with the jurisdiction with which a committee of management is vested under the relevant Rules. So long as the order dated 2-7-1993 communicated on 21-7-1993 holds good, the committee of management recognised thereunder continues to be and has to be deemed to be vested with the jurisdiction with which a committee of management is vested under the relevant Rules. The mere pendency of the suit cannot have any effect on the discharge of the duties by the committee of management in exercise of the jurisdiction vesting in it in accordance with the Rules. 10. The submission therefore that considering the dispute raised in regard to the validity of election of committee of management with Sri Shesh Nath Singh as its Manager, the impugned order of suspension was liable to be ignored as without jurisdiction is totally misconceived and is not at all acceptable. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the impugned order of suspension adversely affects the pecuniary benefits avail able to the petitioner by virtue of his holding the post of Head Master of the Junior High School and as a result of this order, the emoluments get dimi nished and in this view of the matter since the prior approval of the Dis trict Basic Education Officer as contemplated under Rule 15 of the U. P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978 has not been obtained, the impugned order is null and void and cannot be enforced against the petitioner. 12. The provisions contained in Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules stipu lates that no Head Master or an Assistant Teacher of a recognised School may be discharged or dismissed from service or reduced in rank and subjec ted 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. 13. The contention is that the impugned order results in the diminu tion in emoluments payable to the petitioner the payments whereof stand secured under the provisions of the U. P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and Other Employees) Act, Iv78 and such an order cannot be passed without obtaining the prior approval of the District Basic Education Officer which has not been obtained in the present case. 14. 14. The aforesaid controversy has been the subject-matter of consi deration in the case of Smt. Shyam Verma v. Basic Education Board, U. P. , Allahabad and others, decided by a Full Bencli of this Court, the decision in which case is reported in 1995 (2) UPLBEC 779 : 1995 (2) LBESR 36 (All) (FB), The Full Bench in its aforesaid decision has held that when an employee is suspended pending or in contemplation of an enquiry Rule 15 of the U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruit ment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 is not attracted and no prior approval in writing by the Education Officer is required before ordering suspension. The Full Bench was also of the view that after the employee is suspended the emoluments to which he is entitled is the subsis tence allowance payable in accordance with the Rules which has to be treated as the total of his emoluments which is payable to him during the period of suspension. It was also clarified by the Full Bench that the right of the teacher to get the salary without any deduction is not infringed on account of payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspen sion and consequently the provisions contained in the U. P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salary to Teachers and others Employees) Act, 1978 cannot be deemed to provide for or deal with the conditions of service of the teachers and the employees meaning thereby that the provisions con tained in Section 4 of the U. P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 referred to above cannot come to the rescue of the person put under suspension and be taken to vest the concerned authority with the jurisdiction to pass any such order as is im pugned in the present case interfering with the order of suspension of a teacher pending contemplated disciplinary proceedings. 15. In the aforesaid view of the matter taking into consideration the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Shyama Verma, referred to hereinabove, the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer dated 12-5-1994 approving the impugned order dated 3-5-1994 as well as the impugned order is not liable to be interferred with subject to what has been indicated hereinbelow. 16. 16. However, the jurisdiction vesting with the management to suspend a teacher in exercise of the powers secured under the statutory provisions contained in the U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teacher) Rules, 1978 cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner or in a manner which may result in the victimisation of the teacher concerned. This statutory power cannot be permitted to be abused in any manner. 17. The impugned order of suspension appears to have been passed in exercise of the jurisdiction contemplated under the provisions contained in the U. P. Recognised Basic School, Junior High School Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. It may be noticed that where there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment, or in the Statutes or the Rules framed thereunder, the suspension has the effect of temporarily depriving the employee concerned of the office held by him prior to the order of suspension and the employee is not bound to render service and the Master is not bound to pay. However, the order of suspen sion itself postulates the continuance of the relationship of Master and Servant and its real effect is that though the employees continues to be the member of the service, the permission to work and discharge the duties attached to the office held prior to the passing of the order of suspension stands withheld, providing only a subsistence allowance to the concerned employee which is much less than the salary payable to him. It is thus, a temporary deprivation of office but by reason of suspension, the person does not lose his office nor does he suffer in de-gradation. He only ceases to exercise the powers and discharge the duties for the time being. 18. In the present case, what I find is that the petitioner had been suspended on 3-5-1994 and a charge- sheet has also been submitted on 16-5-1994. However, the disciplinary enquiry which started with the sub mission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been concluded so far. 19. The departmental proceedings, should be concluded with reason able diligence and within a reasonable period of time. However, the disciplinary enquiry which started with the sub mission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been concluded so far. 19. The departmental proceedings, should be concluded with reason able diligence and within a reasonable period of time. In its decision in the case O. P. Gupta v. Union of India, reported in 1987 (4) SCC 328 , the Apex Court had indicated and emphasised that if such a principle was not to be recognised it would imply that the employer is being vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing the employee under dis ability and distress for an indefinite duration. Such a situation, it seems to me, has to be avoided. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the committee of management, the respondent No. 3 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against Sahab Singh, the petitioner within a period not later than four months, failing which the impugned order of suspension dated 3-5-1994 shall stand revoked. 21. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, this writ peti tion is disposed of finally with the direction to the Committee of Manage ment, Gulab Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Samaithan, Bhiti, district Gorakhpur to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the Head Master of the said Junior High School, pursuant to the impugned order of suspension dated 3-5-1994 within a period of four months in accordance with law failing which the aforesaid order of suspen sion passed against the petitioner shall stand revoked. 22. There shall be however, no order as to costs. Petition disposed of. .