Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 1739 of 1973. Appeal by Special Leave from	 the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.1973 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/72) F.S. Nariman	 O.C. Mathur	 P.N. Tiwari and D.N. Mishra	 for the appellants. Dushiant Kumar Rampal respondent. (in person) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI	 J. 	 We pronounced our order on this appeal on 17th December	 1976 and we now proceed to give our reasons. We may point out that the respondent was not represented by a lawyer and he argued case in person and though he is a lay man	 not well versed in the science of law and in the art and skill of advocacy	 we must admit that he argued his case with conspicuous ability. Prior to 5th September	 1969 there was only one Univer sity for the entire territory of the State of Jammu & Kash mir	 namely	 the University of Jammu & Kashmir. It was constituted under the Jammu & Kashmir University Act	 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965) and	 as provid ed in section 20	 its central authorities included the Senate and the Central Council. The Central Council was the executive body of the University and it had the power inter alia to appoint teachers and to define their duties. The respondent was appointed as a lecturer in English by the Central Council on 25th April	 1966 and after his period of probation was over he was confirmed as lecturer with effect from 29th April	 1967. The conditions of service of the respondent	 like those of other confirmed teachers	 were regulated by the Statutes made by the Senate from time to time under the provisions of Act of 196.5. Statute 2 provided that every salaried teacher of the University shall have to execute a written contract with the UniverSity and the conditions of service of teachers appointed by the University shall be those embodied in the agreement of service annexed to the Statutes and every teacher shall execute such agreement before he enters upon his duties or as soon as possible thereafter. It appears that though Statute 2 required an agreement of service to be executed by a teacher	 no such agreement of service was executed by the respondent on his appointment as 47 lecturer. But it was common ground between the parties that the conditions of service of the respondent were governed by the provision set out in the form of agreement of service annexed to the Statutes. Clause (6) of this agreement and this clause admittedly governed the respondent stipulated that in all matters	 the teacher would "abide by the Stat utes and Regulations from time to time in force in the University	 and in particular	 by those determining his/ her grade	 increment	 conditions of service	 rules of superannu ation and provident fund rules	 provided that no change in the Statutes and Regulations in this regard shall be deemed to have adversely affected the teacher. " The respondent was thus clearly bound by any changes which might be made in the Statutes from time to time and no change made in the Stat utes was to be regarded as having adversely affected the respondent and he could not complain against it. The case of the respondent was that he satisfactorily carried on his duties as lecturer and earned his increments from year to year. On 5th September	 1969 the Governor of Jammu & Kashmir promulgated Ordinance No. 10 of 1969 establishing in place of the University of Jammu & Kashmir	 two separate univer sities	 namely	 the University of Kashmir for the Kashmir division and the University of Jammu for the Jammu division of the State. This Ordinance was replaced by the Jammu & Kashmir University Act	 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1969) which came into force on 30th October	 1969. The:Act of 1969 made a slight departure from the earlier Act in the constitution of the various authorities of each University	 Section 20 of the Act of 1969 provided that the authorities of each university shall include the University Council and the Syndicate. The University Coun cil was constituted supreme authority of the university while the Syndicate was entrusted with the chief executive authority. Whereas under the earlier Act	 the power to appoint all teachers of the University was entrusted to the Central Council. there was bifurcation of this power between the University Council and the Syndicate under the Act of 1969. The University Council was given the power to appoint teachers of the status of a reader and above white the power to appoint teachers below the status of a reader was en trusted to the Syndicate. The Syndicate was thus the au thority under the Act of 1969 vested with the power to appoint and that power would also carry with it the power to dismiss teachers below the status of a reader. Since the University of Jammu & Kashmir came to an end on the repeal of the Act of 1965 and two new universities	 one of Kashmir and the other of Jammu	 were established	 some provision had to be made in the Act of 1969 for continuance of the Stat utes and Regulations so that there might be no hiatus or break causing dislocation in the functioning of the two new universities. Section 51 of the Act of 1969. therefore. provided that all Statutes and Regulations made under the Act of 1965 and in force immediately before the commencement of the Act of 1969 shall so far as may be consistent with the provisions of the latter Act	 continue to be in force in each University and section 48. sub sec. (2) gave power to the special officer to "examine the Statutes and Regulations continued under section 51 of this Act and propose such modifica 48 tions	 alterations and additions therein as may be necessary to bring such Statutes and Regulations in conformity with the provisions of this Act" and provided that the modifica tions	 alterations and additions proposed by the Special officer shall	 if approved by the Vice Chancellor	 be deemed to have been made by the competent authority under the Act of 1969 and shall continue in force until altered or superseded by the authority constituted under the Act of 1969. There was also the problem of ensuring continuance of service of the existing employees of the University of Jammu & Kashmir and their allocation between the two succeeding universities and this problem was solved by the enactment of section 52 in the Act of 1969. That section	 in so far as material	 provided as follows: "52. Continuance of service of the existing employees and their allocation Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any Statute or Regulation made thereunder or in any other law for the time being in force. (1) all employees of the University of Jammu and Kashmir constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act	 1965 (other than those serving on contract. or on deputation 'in the University or those serving m the Publication Bureau of the University) who immediately before the commencement of this Act	 were holding or discharging the duties of any post of office in connection with the affairs of the said University shall	 subject to the provisions of sub section (2)	 continue in service on the same terms and conditions as regulated their service before such commencement; (2) the Chancellor may in consultation with the pro Chancellor by order allocate the employees of the University of Jammu & Kashmir (other than those serving on contract or deputation in the University or those serving in the Publication Bureau of the University) between the University of Kashmir and the University of Jammu constituted under this Act in such manner as he may consider necessary and every such allocation shall be deemed to b e an appointment	 transfer or promotion as the case may be	to the post or office by the competent authority under this Act: Provided that in making such allocations the conditions of service of employment of such employees shall not be varied to their disad vantage; (3) x x x x x (4) all persons who immediately before the commencement of this Act were holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the Univer sity of Jammu and Kashmir	 on 49 contract basis or by virtue of their deputa tion to such posts or offices from other services in the State. unless otherwise or dered by the Chancellor after consulting the Pro Chancellor	 shall cease to hold such posts or to discharge such duties after 60 days from the commencement of this Act and all such contracts with or deputations to he University of Jammu & Kashmir shall stand terminated with effect from the expiry of the said period of 60 days. " Since most of the teachers had entered into an agreement of service with the University of Jammu & Kashmir as provided in Statute 2 and the rest were also treated as having en tered into such agreement of service by reason of the com pulsive force of Statute 2 though in fact such agreement of service had not been executed by them	 perhaps due to inad vertence	 the Chancellor took the view that all of them held their posts on contract basis and hence	 proceeding on the assumption that sub sec. (4) of section 52 was attracted in their case	 he made an order dated 24th December	 1969 ' directing that the appointments of the teachers set out in Schedule (1 )	 which also included the respondent	 shall continue on the respective posts mentioned In that schedule on the terms and conditions embodied in Schedule II with effect from 9th January	 1970. Schedule II contained the terms and conditions on which teachers mentioned in Schedule I were continued in service of the University of Jammu and clause 9(ii) of that Schedule read as follows: "The Vice Chancellor may when he deems it necessary suspend the teacher on grounds of misconduct	 insubordination	 inefficiency or unsatisfactory performance of duty	 when he suspends the teacher he shall report it to the university Council/Syndicate at the next meeting. " The respondent and some other teachers were of the view that the terms and conditions set out in Schedule II effected a change in their conditions of service to their prejudice and hence they made a representation to the Chancellor and other authorities of the University of Jammu. It does not appear from the record as to what happened to this representation but presumably it was rejected. Now we come to the events which formed the immediate cause for the predicament of the respondent. It appears that certain complaints were received by the Vice Chancel lor against the conduct of the respondent and the Vice Chancellor took the view that these complaints were of a serious character and needed to be enquired into and pending such enquiry	 it was not desirable that the respondent should be allowed to continue to work as a lecturer. The ViceChancellor accordingly passed an order dated 21st May	 1970 directing that the respondent be placed under suspen sion with immediate effect. This order was purported to be passed by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested in him under clause 9(ii) of Schedule II of the Order dated 24th December	 1969 and section 13 (4) of the Act of 1969. It may be convenient at this stage	 before we proceed 50 further	 to refer to section 13(4)	 since considerable argument before us turned upon it Section 13 deals with the powers and duties of the Vice Chancellor and sub section (4) of that section reads as follows: "(4) The Vice Chancellor may take action as he deems necessary in any emergency which	 in his opinion	 calls for immediate action. He shall in such a ease and as soon as may be thereafter	 report his action to the officer	 authority or other body of the Uni versity concerned who or which would ordinari ly have dealt with the matter. " Sub section (6) of section 13 is also material and it is in the following terms: "(6 ) The Vice Chancellor shall give effect to the orders of the University Council and the Syndicate of the University concerned regarding the appointment	 dismissal and suspension of persons in the employment of the University and shall exercise general control over the affairs of the University. He shall be responsible for the discipline of the University in accordance with this Act	 Stat utes and Regulations. " The Vice Chancellor	 immediately after passing the Order of suspension	 placed it before the Syndicate at its next meeting held on 24th June	 1970. The respondent had also in the meantime submitted his representation against the Order of suspension and this representation also came up before this meeting of the Syndicate. The Syndicate considered the Order of suspension made by the ViceChancellor as also the representation submitted by the respondent and passed a resolution rejecting the representation of the respondent recording the action taken by the Vice Chancellor and di recting that articles of charge be framed and communicated to the respondent and he may be required to submit his explanation in writing and a committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor and three other persons be appointed to investigate the matter and submit its finding to the Syndicate. The Registrar of the University thereafter passed 	an order dated 6th June	 1970 declaring that	 during the period of suspension	 the respondent would not be enti tled to get full salary but he would be paid only subsist ence allowance at an amount equal to half pay and half dearness allowance in accordance with the usual practice followed by the University. It may be pointed out that with effect from 21st May	 1971	 that is after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of suspension	 the subsist ence allowance payable ' to the respondent was raised to 75% of the pay and dearness allowance. A charge sheet contain ing twelve charges was then given to the respondent and he was required to submit his explanation. The respondent gave his explanation to the charges leveled against him and while doing so	 he also objected to the constitution of the Committee which was appointed to enquire into the charges. In consequence of his objection	 the constitution of the committee was changed and the Vice Chancellor was kept out of it. The enquiry by the Committee 51 commenced on 12th March	 19:71 and it went on for some time	 but before it could be completed	 the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir challeng ing the validity of the Order dated 24th December	 1969	 the Order dated 6th June	 1970 in regard to payment of subsist ence allowance and also impugning the legality of the enquiry proceedings. There were various grounds taken by the respondent in the writ petition but it is not necessary to refer to them in detail having regard to the course which the appeal has taken before us. The writ petition was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court and by a judgment dated 28th April	 1972 the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. The respondent there upon preferred a Letters Patent appeal in the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal	 the departmental enquiry which was started against the respondent. was completed and the committee made a report absolving the respondent of all the charges except charges Nos. 1 and 12 of which the respondent was found guilty. The syndicate	 after considering the report of the committee	 resolved to issue a notice to the respondent to show cause why "the punishment for termination of his services from the University be not imposed on him" on the ground of charges Nos. 1 and 12. Pursuant to this resolu tion	 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent which led to the filing of a petition by the respondent in the Letters Patent appeal for taking notice of these subse quent events. The respondent in this petition challenged the report of the committee as also the resolution of the Syndicate on various grounds which are no longer material. The University filed its reply to the petition denying the allegations made against the committee and disputing the grounds on which the validity of the enquiry was challenged on behalf of the respondent. The Letters Patent appeal thereafter came to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench	 by a judgment dated 22nd October	 1973	 took the view that the Order dated 24th December	 1969 was violative of section 52	 sub section (1) of the Act of 1969 and the Order of suspension dated 21st May	 1970 was "defective for want of jurisdiction and other legal infirmities" and these two orders were accordingly quashed and set aside by the Division Bench. The Division Bench also held that "as a necessary corollary to our find ings on the two impugned orders and also in consequence of our observations on the legal aspect of the show cause notice issued to the appellant to terminate his service	 the same also deserves to be quashed." The Division Bench accordingly allowed the appeal	 set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 24th December	 1969 and the Order of suspension dated 21st May	 1970 as also the show cause notice issued to the respondent and directed the reinstate ment of the respondent. The University and the Vice Chan cellor thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court. The appeal was heard by this Court for some time on the points which were decided against the University and the Vice Chancellor and certain further points were also raised by the respondent in support of the order made by the Division Bench of the High Court. 52 But it is not necessary to examine the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties on these various points	 since before the hearing of the appeal could be concluded	 a partial settlement was arrived at between the University and the Vice Chancellor on the one hand and the respondent on the other. It was agreed between the parties as a result of this settlement that the University should drop the disci plinary proceedings action against the respondent and that the respondent should be allowed to join service within fourteen days from the date of the order to be made by this Court and upon his joining	 his pay should be fixed as lecturer taking in view the increments which he would have earned but for the suspension. It was also declared in the settlement that there shall be no stigma whatsoever attached to the respondent and so far as the personal allegations made by him against the University authorities we;re con cerned	 they would stand withdrawn by him. The settlement also provided that the respondent should be given benefit of continuity of service and if the validity of the Order of suspension was ultimately upheld by this Court and it was held that the respondent was not legally entitled to any thing more than the subsistence allowance actually paid to him	 the matter would be left to the Chancellor to determine in his sole and. absolute discretion as to whether any additional amount at all	 and if so	 what amount	 may be paid to the respondent for the period of suspension ex gratia without any liability on the part of the University. The Chancellor was authorised to determine this matter in consultation with the Pro Chancellor or in such other manner as he thought proper and he could do so	 even without giving any opportunity to either party to make his or their submis sions in the matter. Having regard to this settlement	 the only two questions which remained to be resolved by this Court were	 first	 whether the Order of suspension was valid	 and secondly	 if the Order of suspension was valid	 whether the respondent was entitled to anything more than the subsistence allowance actually paid to him. These two questions we shall now proceed to decide. The first question is whether the Order of suspension made by the Vice Chancellor was a valid Order or it suffered from any legal infirmities. The respondent assailed the validity of the order of suspension on the ground that it was made in purported exercise of the power conferred under clause (9) (ii) of Schedule II to the Order dated 24th December	 1969	 but this Order w. as itself void and inoper ative as it was in conflict with the provisions of section 52	 subsection (1) of the Act of 1969. The argument of the respondent was that immediately before the commencement of the Act of 1969	 he did not hold or discharge the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the University on contract basis	 nor was he on deputation from any other service of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and he was	 therefore	 not covered by section 52	 sub sections (4) under which the Order dated 24th December	 1969 was purported to be made	 but his case was governed by section 52	 subsection (1) which ensured him continuity in service on the same terms and conditions as before and hence the order dated 24th December	 1969 altering his terms and conditions as set out in 53 Schedule II was invalid. This argument would have required us to consider whether the employment or the respondent under the University of Jammu & Kashmir immediately prior to the commencement of the Act or 1967 was on contract basis	 because the provision in regard to deputation being inapplicable	 it is only if the employment of the respondent was on contract basis that the Order dated 24th December	 1969 could be justified under section 52	 sub section (4). But we shall	 for the purpose of the present appeal	 proceed on the assumption that the case of the respondent was gov erned by subsection (1) and not sub section (4) of section 52 and the order dated 24th December	 1969 in so far as it determined any different terms and conditions for the re spondent was not valid	 since we find that	 in the view which is being taken by us	 it is not necessary to examine this question. Undoubtedly	 the effect of tins assumption would be to put clause (9) (ii) of Schedule II to the order dated 24th December	 1969 out of the way of the respondent and it would not be available to the University and the Vice Chancellor m support of the Order of suspension. But even so	 we think the Vice Chancellor had power to make the Order of suspension and he was within his authority in doing so. We have already pointed out that by reason of Statute 2 read with clause (6) of the Form of Agreement annexed to the Statutes made under the Act of 1965	 the respondent was bound by any changes which might be made in the Statutes from time to time and no change made in the Statutes was to be regarded as having adversely affected the respondent. Now	 the Statutes made under the Act of 196.5 continued to be applicable to the University by reason of section 51	 but section 48	 sub section (2) provided for making of modifica tions	 alterations and additions in the Statutes with a view to bringing them in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1969. The Special Officer accordingly proposed certain modifications in the Statutes which were found necessary to bring the Statutes in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1969 and. these modifications were approved by the Chancellor by an Order dated 24th December	 1969 and by reason of section 48	 sub section (2) they were deemed to have been made by the competent authority under the Act of 1969. This Order dated 24th December	 1969 substituted Chapter iV in the Statutes by a new Chapter and Statute 24(ii) in the newly substituted Chapter made the same provision as clause (9)(ii) of .Schedule II to the Order made under sub section (4) of section 52. Now	 obvi ously	 if Statute 24(ii) were a valid provision	 the Vice Chancellor would have power to suspend a teacher "on the ground of misconduct	 insubordination	 inefficiency or unsatisfactory performance of duty" and the Order of suspen sion made against the respondent would be within the au thority of the ViceChancellor. The respondent	 there fore	 assailed the validity of Statute 24(ii) on the ground that it was not necessary for the purpose of bringing the Statutes m conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1969 and was hence not within the terms of section 48	 subsection (2). Turning to the language of section 48	 sub section (2) it is clear that the power conferred on the Vice Chancellor under 54 that provision to approve modifications in the ' Statutes is a power which can be exercised only where the modifications are necessary for bringing the Statutes in conformity with the provisions of the Act of '1969	 and if it is found that any modifications purported to be approved by the Chancel lor are plainly unnecessary from the point of view of bring ing the Statutes in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1969 '	 it would be outside the power of the Chancel lor to approve them. The Chancellor cannot say that it is for him to decide in his subjective opinion whether the modifications proposed to be made are necessary for bringing the Statutes in conformity with the Act of 1969 and that his subjective opinion is immune from scrutiny in a court of law. Of course	 if the view taken by the Chancellor is a reasonably possible view	 the Court would not interfere with the Order made by him approving the modifications	 but if what has been done by him is plainly and egregiously wrong	 the Court would certainly interfere on the ground that the order made by the Chancellor is beyond the power conferred on him by section 48	 sub section(2). The question which	 therefore	 arises for consideration is whet.her Statute 24(ii	) could reasonably be said to be necessary for bring ing the Statutes in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1969. We may first refer to section 13	 sub section (4) of the Act of 1969 which confers power on the Vice Chancellor to take such action as he deems necessary in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action. A similar provision was also made in section 13	 sub section (4) of the Act of 1965. But the Act of 1969 introduced a new provision in sub section (6) of section 13 to the effect that the Vice Chancellor shall be responsible for the disci pline of the University in accordance with the Act	 Statutes and Regulations. The Vice Chancellor was	 thus	 entrusted under sub section (6) of section 13 with the task of main taining discipline in the University and the entrustment of this task carried with it by necessary implication power to. take whatever action was necessary for the purpose of main taining discipline	 provided of course such action was in accordance with the Act of 1969 ' and the Statutes and Regu lations. Since sub section (6) of section 13 was a new provision enacted in the Act of 1969	 it was necessary to make Statutes for the purpose of enabling the Vice Chancel lor to effectively discharge the responsibility of maintain ing the discipline of the University and for that purpose	 vesting power in the Vice Chancellor to suspend a teacher pending departmental enquiry against him. It was with this object of bringing the Statutes in confirmity with sub section (6) of section 13 that Statute 24(ii) was added by way of modification in the Statutes by the Order dated 24th December	 1969. We may concede straight away .that if there was anything in the Act of 1969 which was inconsistent with the conferment of power of interim suspension on the Vice Chancellor	 Statute 24(ii) could not be approved by the Chancellor	 because no Statute can be made is in conflict with any provision of the Act. But we do not find anything in the Act of 1969 which militates against vesting of power in the ViceChancellor to order interim suspension of a teacher and hence Statute 24(ii) must be held to be a Stat ute validly approved by the Chancellor 55 within his authority under section 48	 sub section (2). The view taken by the Chancellor that Statute 24(ii) was neces sary for bringing the Statutes in conformity with sub sec tion (6) of 'section 13 can not in any event be said to be so plainly erroneous that the Court would strike down Stat ute 24(ii) as invalid. Now	 if Statute 24(ii) is valid	 there can be no doubt that the respondent would be bound by it and in that event	 the order of suspension made by the ViceChancellor would be clearly within the power conferred on him by that Statute. It is true that the Order of sus pension did not recite StatUte 24(ii) as the source of power under which it was made	 but it is now well settled	 as a result of several decisions of this Court	 that when an authority makes an order which is otherwise within .its competence	 it cannot fail merely because it purports to be made under a wrong provision of law	 if it can be shown to be within its powers under any other provision a wrong label cannot vitiate an order which is otherwise within the power of the authority to make	 Vide Hukamchand Mills Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh(1) and P. Balakotaiah vs Union of India.(2) We may also point out that the Order of suspension was	 in any event	 justified by the provision in section 13	 sub section (4). The Order of suspension	 in fact	 recited that it was made in exercise of the power conferred under section 13	 sub section (4). Sub section (4) of section 13 is general in terms and provides that the ViceChancellor shall be entitled to. take such action as he deems necessary in any emergency which in his opinion calls for. immediate action. It does not talk specifically of an order of interim suspension of a teacher but the width and amplitude of the language of the provision would clearly include action by way of interim suspension of a teacher	 ' when there is in the opinion of the Vice Chancellor an emergency calling for immediate action. The respondent contended that the power to order interim suspension is a quasi judicial power and it would not be comprehended within the language of sub section (4) of section 13. But this contention is clearly falla cious and the premise on which it is based is unsound. It is not correct to say that an order of interim suspension is a quasi judicial order and in any event	 the language of sub section (4 ) of section 13 is sufficiently wide and comprehensive to take within its scope and ambit every kind of action which may be considered necessary by the ViceChancellor in an emergency and there is no reason why such action should not include making of an order of interim suspension. The Vice Chancellor	 therefore	 clearly had power under section 13	 sub section (4) to make an order of interim suspension if he thought it necessary to make such an order in an emergent situation which in his opinion called for immediate action. The respondent sought to contend that at the date when the order of suspension was passed	 there was no emergency which called for immediate action on the part of the Vice	Chancellor and	 therefore	 the foundation for taking action under section 13	 sub section (4) was wanting and the order of suspension could not be justified under that provision. (1) ; (2) ; 5 240SCI/77 56 But this contention cannot be entertained by us since it has not been taken as a ground of challenge in the writ peti tion. Whether or not there was 'an emergency requiring immediate action on the part of the Vice Chancellor .is entirely a question of fact and if the respondent wanted to contest the validity of the exercise of power by the Vice Chancellor under section 13	 sub section (4) in making the order of suspension	 he should have pleaded in the writ petition that the order of suspension was outside the power conferred under section 13	 sub section (4) as there was no emergency. The respondent was aware from the recital con tained in the order of suspension that it was made by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the power conferred under section 13	 sub section (4) and	 therefore	 if the respond ent wanted to challenge the exercise of this power on. the ground that there was no emergency justifying its exercise	 he should have made an averment to that effect in the writ petition. If such averment had been made in the writ peti tion	 the University and the Vice Chancellor would have had an opportunity of meeting it in the affidavit in reply filed by them	 but no such averment having been made in the writ petition	 the University and the Vice Chancellor were not called upon to meet it. Hence	 we cannot permit the re spondent to challenge the validity of the order of suspen sion on the ground that there was no emergency attracting the applicability of section 13	 sub section (4). The order of suspension made by the Vice Chancellor was plainly and indubitably an order which the Vice Chancellor had power to make under section 13	 sub section (4). It may be noted that immediately after making the order of suspension the ViceChancellor placed it before the Syndicate at its next meeting as required by the second part of section 13	 sub section (4) and the Syndicate approved of the action taken by the Vice Chancellor by rejecting the representation of the respondent and recording the fact of the making of the order of suspension. We may also refer to one other contention urged on behalf of the respondent and that was that by reason of section 52	 sub section (1) the respondent was entitled to continue in service of the University on the same terms and conditions as regulated his service before the commencement of the Act of 1969 and in view of the provide to sub section (2) of section 52 the conditions of service of the respondent could not be varied to his disadvantage and	 therefore	 neither Statute 24(ii) nor section 13	 sub section (4) could operate to confer on the Vice Chancellor power to make the order of suspension which he did not possess under the old terms and conditions. This contention	 plausible though it may seem	 is	 in our opinion	 not well founded. Section 52	 sub section (1) undoubtedly continued the service of a teacher on the same terms and conditions as regulated his service before the commencement of the Act of 1969 and that was subject to the provisions of sub section (2) of section 	52	 but this subjection to the provisions of sub section (2) did not import the requirement set out in the second proviso that the conditions of service of a teacher shall not be varied to his disadvantage. The words "subject to the provi sions of sub section (2)" employed in subsection (1) of section 52 were intended merely 'to clarify that a 57 teacher shall continue in service on the same terms and conditions but subject to any allocation which may be made by the Vice Chancellor under sub section (2) of section 52. Nothing in sub section (1) should be construed as in any way derogating from the power of the Vice Chancellor to make an allocation of the teacher under section 52	 sub section (2). The proviso to sub section (2)imposed a limi tation on the power of the Chancellor to make an allocation by providing that in making such allocation the conditions of service of the employee shall not be varied to his disad vantage and it could not be construed. as a substantive provision adding a requirement in sub section (1 ) that even though the terms and conditions of service may permit alter ation to the disadvantage of an employee	 such alteration shall be inhibited. We must	 therefore	 consider the impact of sub section (1) of section 52 unaffected by the provision to sub section (2). Now	 it is obvious that even if the respondent was entitled to continue in service on the same terms and conditions as before by reason of sub section (1) of section 52	 these very terms and conditions provided that he would be bound by any changes which might be made in the Statutes from time to time Vide Statute 2 read with clause (6) of the Form of the Agreement annexed to the Statutes made under the Act of 1965. If	 therefore	 any changes were made in the terms and conditions of service of the respondent by Statutes validly made under	 the Act of 1969	 the respondent could not complain of any infraction of the provision of sub section (1) of section 52. Statute 24(ii) was	 as already pointed out above	 a Statute validly made under section 48	 sub section (2) and hence the Vice Chan cellor was entitled to make the order of suspension against the respondent in exercise of the power conferred by that Statute. Section 13	 sub section (4) of the Act of 1969 could also be availed of by the Vice Chancellor for sustain ing the order of suspension	 since it conferred the same power on the Vice Chancellor as section 13	 sub section (4) of the Act of 1965 and exercise of the power conferred by it as against the respondent did not involve any violation of sub section ( 1 ) of section 52. We are	 therefore	 of the view that the order of suspension was a valid order made by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Statute 24(ii) as also section 13	 sub section (4) of the Act of 1969. Now	 if the order of suspension was a valid order	 it suspended the contract between the respondent and the Uni versity and neither the respondent was bound to perform his duties under the contract nor was the University bound to pay any salary to him. The respondent was entitled to receive from the University only such subsistence allowance as might be payables under the rules and regulations govern ing his terms and conditions of service. The legal position in regard to the right of a master to suspend his servant is now well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court. The law on the subject was succinctly stated the following words by Hegde	J. in V P Gindroniya vs State Madhya Pradesh (1): (1) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 448. 58 "The general principle is that an em ployer can suspend an employee of his pending an enquiry into his misconduct and the only question that can arise in such a suspension will relate to the payment of his wages during the period of such suspension. It is now well settled that the power to suspend	 in the sense of a right to forbid a employee to work	 is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant	 and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract	 or of an express term in the contract itself. Ordi narily	 therefore	 the absence of such a power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some Statute would mean that an employer would have no power to suspend an employee of his and even if he does so in the sense that he forbid the employee to work	 he will have to pay the employee 's wages during the period of suspension. Where	 however	 there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily sus pending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay. It is equally well settled that an order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee while an enquiry is pending into his conduct even though there is no such term in the contract of employment or in the rules	 but in such a case the employee would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which	 it could be withheld. The distinction between suspending the contract of a service of a servant and suspending him from performing the duties of his office on the basis that the contract is subsisting is important	 The suspension in the latter case is always an implied term in every contract of service. When an employee is suspended in this sense	 it means that the employer merely issues a direction to him that he should not do the service required of him during a par ticular period. In other words	 the employer is regarded as issuing an order to the employee which because the contract is sub sisting	 the employee must obey. " It will	 therefore	 be seen that where there is power con ferred on the employer either by express term in contract or by the rules governing the terms and conditions of service to suspend an employee	 the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant with the consequence that .the employee is not bound to render service and the employer is not bound to pay. In such a case the employee would not be entitled to receive any payment at all from the employer unless the contract of employment or the rules governing the terms and conditions of service provide for payment of some subsistance allow ance. Here	 as we have held	 59 the Vice Chancellor had the power to suspend the respondent under Statute 24(ii	) or in any event under section 13	 sub section (4) and hence the respondent could not claim payment of his salary during the period of suspension. The only ' payment which the respondent could claim to receive from the University was subsistence allowance. if the rules governing the terms and conditions of his service made such a provision. The University stated that it had adopted as a matter of practice the rules relating to Civil Servants of the State of Jammu & Kashmir for the purpose of payment of subsistence allowance to its employees and in fact the University Council at its meeting held on 22nd February	 1971 formally accorded approval to this practice. The respondent was	 therefore	 clearly not entitled to receive from the University anything more than the subsistence allowance actually paid to him	 which	 we are told	 was paid on the same basis as that prevailing under the rules relat ing to Civil Servants of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. These were the reasons for which we made our order dated 17th December	 1976 upholding the validity of the order of suspension dated 21st May	 1970 and holding that the respondent was not entitled to anything more than the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of sus pension under the order of the Registrars dated 6th June	 1970.

The Jammu and Kashmir University	 which was a university constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act	 1965	 was bifurcated into two universities one for Jammu area and the other for Kashmir area by an act called the Jammu and Kashmir Universities Act	 1969. Statute 2 made under the 1965 Act required every teacher to sign the pre scribed agreement of service with the University. Clause (6) of the agreement stipulated that in all matters the teacher would abide by the statutes and regulations in force in the university from time to time. The proviso to this clause provided that no change in the statutes and regula tions in this regard shall be deemed to have adversely affected the teacher. Section 51 of the 1969 Act provides for continuing in force the statutes and regulations made under the 1965 Act; but section 48(2) empowered a special officer to propose modifi cations necessary to bring the statutes made under the 1965Act in conformity with the provisions of the 1969 Act and if such modifications were approved by the Chancellor they were deemed to have been made by the competent author ity under the 1969 Act. Section 52(1) of the 1969 Act provides that all employees of the university employed under the 1965 Act shall continue in service on the same terms and conditions as regulated their service before the commence ment of the 1969 Act. Sub section (2) empowers the Chancel lor to allocate employees of the university (other than those serving on contract) between the two new universities and the allocation so made was deemed to be an appointment to the post under the 1969 Act. The proviso to this sub section provides that in making such allocations the condi tions of service of employment of such employees shall not be: varied to their disadvantage. Sub section (4) provides that all persons who were employed under the former univer sity on contract shall cease to hold such posts after 60 days from the commencement of the 1969 Act and all such contracts with the former university shall stand terminated on the expiry of 60 days. Section 13(4) of the 1969 Act empowers the Vice Chancel lor to take such action as he deems necessary in any emer gency which calls for immediate action. Section 13(6) provides that the Vice Chancellor shall be responsible for the discipline of the University. Section 14(3) of the 1969 Act contained an identical provision as that contained in section	 13(4) of the 1965 Act. To bring the statutes under the 1965 Act in conformity with the provisions of the 1969 Act modifications proposed by the special officer under section 48(2) of the 1969 Act were approved by the Chancellor by his order dated December 24	 1969. This order substituted Chapter IV in the statutes by a new chapter. Acting under section 52(4)	 the Chancellor made an order on December 24 1969 directing that certain teachers shall continue on the respective posts in the new Universities on the terms and conditions embodied in Schedule II to the order. Clause 9(ii) of the Schedule empowered the Vice Chancellor to suspend a teacher on grounds. among others of misconduct. The respondent	 a teacher appointed under the. 1965 Act	 was transferred to the Jammu area by the Chancellor 's order dated December 24	 1969. In exercise of the power under el. 9(ii) of Schedule II of the Chancellor 's order 44 and section 13(4) of the 1969 Act	 the Vice Chancellor	 by an order dated May 21	 1970	 suspended the respondent from service. By another order dated June 6	 1970 the respondent was allowed a subsistence allowance amounting to half his pay and half D.A. which was later raised to 75% of his pay and allowances. The respondent 's writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the suspension order of May 21	 1970	 as well as the order dated June 6	 1970 was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court. On appeal the Division Bench struck down the order of suspension as violative of section 52(1) of the 1969 Act. In appeal it was contended by the respondent that (1) since his case was governed by section 52(1) the order of Decem ber 24	 1969 made under section 52(4) was invalid because the terms and conditions set out in Schedule H to the order altered his conditions of service; (2) statute 24(ii) was invalid because it was not within the terms of section 48(2) and the statute was not necessary for bringing the statutes in conformity with the provisions of the 1969 Act; (3) the power to order interim suspension was a quasi judicial power and it would not be comprehended within the language of section 13(4) and (4) section 52(1) entitled him to continue in service on the same terms and conditions as before and under section 52(2) his conditions of service could not be varied to his disadvantage; therefore neither statute 24(ii) nor section 13(4) could confer power on the Vice Chancellor to suspend him which power the Vice Chancellor did not have under the earlier Act. Allowing the appeal	 HELD: The Vice Chancellor had the power to make the order of suspension and he was within his authority in doing so. By reason of statute 2 read with el. (6) of the form of agreement the respondent was bound by any changes made	 in the statutes from time to time and no change made in the statutes was to be regarded as having adversely affected him. Statutes made under the 1965 Act continued to be applicable by reason of section 51. To bring the statutes in conformity with the provisions of the 1969 Act	 modifica tions proposed by the special officer were approved by the Chancellor by his order dated December 24	 1969 and by reason of section 48(2) they were deemed to have been made by the competent authority under the 1969 Act. This order substi tuted Chapter IV in the Statutes by a new Chapter and stat ute 24(ii) made the same provision as el. 9(ii) of Schedule II to the order made under section 52(4). If statute 24(ii) were a valid provision	 the Vice Chancellor would have power to suspend a teacher and the order of suspension against the respondent would be within the authority of the Vice Chancellor. [53D E] Statute 24(ii) iS a statute validly approved by the Chancellor under section 48(2). [54H] 2(a) Section 13(6) has entrusted the Vice Chancellor with the task of maintaining discipline in the university and the entrustment of this task carried with it	 by neces sary implication	 the Vower to take whatever action was necessary for maintaining the discipline. Since section 13(6) was a new provision	 it was necessary to make statutes for enabling the Vice Chancellor to discharge the responsibili ty of maintaining the discipline and for that purpose	 vesting power in him to suspend a teacher pending departmen tal enquiry against him. It was with this object of bring ing the statutes in conformity with section 13(6) that statute 24(ii) was added by way of modification in the statutes by the order of December 24	 1969. Moreover	 there is nothing in the 1969 Act which militates against vesting power in the Vice Chancellor to order interim suspension of a teacher. The ChancellOr 's view that statute 24(ii) was necessary to bring it in conformity with section 13(6) cannot be said to be erroneous. [54F G] (b) If statute 24(ii) is valid	 the respondent would be bound by it and in that event the order of suspension made by the Vice Chancellor would be within the power conferred on him by that statute. [55B] (c) Though the order of suspension did not recite stat ute 24(ii) it is wellsettled that when an authority makes an order which is otherwise within its competence	 it cannot fail merely because it purports to be made under a wrong 45 provision of law	 if it can be shown to be within its power under any other provision; a wrong label cannot vitiate an order which is otherwise within the power of the authority to make it. [55B C] P.Balakotaiah vs Union of India	 ; fol lowed. 3(a) It is not correct to say that an order of interim suspension was a quasijudicial order and in any event the language of section 13(4) is sufficiently wide and comprehensive to take within its scope and ambit every kind of action considered necessary by the Vice Chancellor in an emergency. The order of suspension. made by the Vice Chancellor was plainly an order which he had the power to make under section 13(4). [55F] (b) Section 13(4) does not talk specifically of an order of interim suspension of a teacher but the width and ampli tude of the language of the provision would clearly include action by way of interim suspension of a teacher	 when there is in the opinion of the Vice Chancellor	 an emergency calling for immediate action. [55E] (c) The respondent 's contention that there was no emer gency which called for immediate action on the part of the Vice Chancellor and	 therefore	 the order of suspension could not be justified	 cannot be entertained by this Court because no such averment had been made in the writ petition. [55H] 4(a) The respondent could not complain of any infraction of the provisions of section 52(1). Since statute 24(ii) was a statute validly made the Vice Chancellor was entitled to make the order of suspension. The Vice Chancellor could also avail of section 13(4) for sustaining the order of suspen sion since it conferred the same power on him as section 13(4) of the 1965 Act and exercise of the power conferred by it as against the respondent did not involve any violation of the provisions of section 52(1). [57D E] (b) Section 52(1) continued the service of a teacher on the same terms and conditions as regulated his service before the commencement of the 1969Act and that was subject to the provisions of section 52(2). But this subjection to the provisions of sub section (2) did not import the requirement set out in the proviso that the conditions of service of a teacher shall not be varied to his disadvantage. The words "subject to the provisions of sub section (2)" in section 52(1) were intended merely to clarify that a teacher shall contin ue in service on the same terms and conditions but subject to any allocation which may be made by the Chancellor under section 52(2). Nothing in sub section (1) should be construed as in any way derogating from the power of the Chancellor to make an allocation of the teacher under section 52(2). The proviso imposed a limitation on the power of the Chancellor to make an allocation by providing that in making such allocation the conditions of service of the employee shall not be varied to his disadvantage and it could not be construed as a substantive provision adding a requirement in sub s.(1) that even though the terms and conditions of service may permit alteration to the disadvantage of an employee	 such alteration shall be inhibited. [56H; 57A] (c) Even if the respondent was entitled to continue in service on the same terms and conditions as before by reason of section 52(1) these very terms and conditions provided that he would be bound by any changes which might be made in the statutes from time to time. If	 therefore	 any changes were made in the terms and conditions of service of the respondent by statutes validity made under the 1969 Act the respondent could not complain of any infraction of the provisions of section 52(1). [57C D] 5(a) The order of suspension suspended the contract between the respondent and the university and neither the respondent was bound to perform his duties under the contract nor was the university bound to pay any salary to him. The respond ent was entitled to receive only such subsistence allowances as might be payable under the rules and regulations govern ing his terms and conditions of service. [57G] (b) Where there is power in the employer either by an express term in the contract or by the rules governing the terms and conditions of service to 46 suspend an employee	 the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant with the consequence that the employee is not bound to render service and the employer is not bound to pay. In such a case the employee would not be entitled to receive any payment at all from the employer unless the contract of employment or the rules governing the terms and conditions of service provide for payment of some subsistence allow ance. [58H] In the instant case the Vice Chancellor had the power to suspend the respondent under statute 24(ii) and the respond ent could not claim payment of his salary during the period of suspension. P. Gindroniya vs State of Madhya Pradesh	 [1970] 3 SCR 448 followed.