MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of Indian constitution challenges the interim suspension order passed against the petitioner dated 30th April 2009 whereby the petitioner has been suspended from his post pending the disciplinary enquiry and consequently the charge sheet was also issued on 22.6.2009 which has also been made a subject of challenge in the writ petition. The brief facts of the case can be enunciated as under:

a) The petitioner is stated to be the responsible employee of the respondent society namely “The Nehru Memorial Museum and Library Society” ( herein after referred as NMML or respondent society). The said society operated under the ministry of culture which has been arrayed through union of India as respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 2 is the chairman of executive counsel of respondent no. 1 society.

b) The petitioner claims to be currently holding the post of the deputy director of the respondent society. The petitioner is said to be working with that of the respondent no.1 for the last more than 23 years. The petitioner has averred in the petition to have joined the respondent in 1986 and since then the he has been working with the respondent.

c) The grievance of the petitioner emanates from the petitioner's unhealthy relations with that of the respondent's society which started in the in year 2008 which ultimately has culminated into the interim suspension which is baseless and is backed by malice according to petitioner . The petitioner has stated in the petition as a background of the dispute as to how according to the petitioner, he is not treated properly in the institution. The petitioner has given several instances which happened in the year 2008 and prior to the same including the director's decision to delegate the powers of the deputy director. The said decision according to the petitioner is not proper which was also raised before the chairman who is respondent no. 2. Likewise other instances including the petitioner's elevation as deputy director is also stated to be not free from controversy.

d) In this backdrop, the petitioner submitted that due to the unhealthy relationship between the petitioner and the director of the respondent, the respondent was searching for one reason or the other which ultimately lead to starting of the false and malafide disciplinary enquiry and also paved the way for the interim suspension which ought to be quashed by this court.

e) The petitioner then explained his case which is a subject matter of the disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner firstly explained that in year 2000, a committee report under Mr. A.K. Damodaran, who was the member of the NMML Executive council was asked to suggest amendments to the Recruitment rules. Pursuant to suggestions of Damodaran committee, there was discussion between the ministry of culture and executive council and they have thought it fit to amend the rules which in such a manner that the post of the deputy director was to be filled by departmental promotion. The petitioner explained that this has become one of the accusation in the charge sheet whereby the petitioner is alleged to have influence this process of amendment of the rules so as to become deputy director. It has been explained by the petitioner the said decision was taken at very high

level after much discussion spanning over 5 years. The charge sheet however provides that the petitioner issued an explanatory note to the committee report when no such note exists. This has made of the reason leading to the suspension and initiation of the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner.

f) The petitioner then mounted his case on the facts stating that there was an old complaint regarding the fellowship selections held in 2005 by the respondent no. 1 which has been introduced in the picture in order to sidetrack the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the said complaint has just become one reason to suspend