Point of Law: No merits - Suspension order Confirmed - Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching colour of one case against colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of line a case falls, broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL MOIN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents through video conferencing.

2. Present petition has been filed inter-alia aggrieved against the suspension order dated 12.01.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that primarily four grounds have been taken while placing the petitioner under suspension which grounds do not stand scrutiny under the eyes of law and consequently the suspension order merits to be quashed.

4. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that he continued to keep the important documents pertaining to starred questions in his possession. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards the order dated 11.08.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition, whereby he contends that the duty pertaining to documents of starred questions had been given to Sri. Afzal Farooqui, Senior Assistant, while the work of the petitioner in the said order itself only pertained to the election and reservation and thus prima facie the said charge cannot be levelled against the petitioner.

5. So far as the second charge is concerned, it has been contended in the suspension order that the petitioner has not decided the matters pertaining to Right to Information Act within the specified time.

6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has again invited the attention of the Court towards the order dated 11.08.2020 to contend that the duty pertaining to Right to Information Act had been given to Sri. Amit Srivastava, Principal Assistant and thus again the petitioner has no role in the matter.

7. So far as the third charge is concerned which pertains to having kept the applications of certain personnel whose application for transfer during the annual session 2019-2020 had been rejected, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already been punished for the same charge vide the punishment order dated 14.01.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, and as such, he cannot be placed under suspension for the same charge.

8. So far as the fourth charge as has been levelled in the suspension order is concerned i.e. of having proceeded on leave without his application for leave being sanctioned, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that once no order pertaining to rejection of his leave application had been communicated, yet at the same time, also not rejected, as such the petitioner had bonafidely proceeded on leave but he contends that even if the said charge is proved, the same would not entail imposition of a major punishment so as to justify the impugned suspension order.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 to contend that the Apex Court has held that currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee.

10. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even this Court has held in a number of judgments more particularly in the case of Ram Ratan vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ Petition No. 10276 (SS) of 2019 as well as the judgment in the case of Radheyshyam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ Petition No. 14023 (SS) of 2020, copies of which are Annexure-14 to the writ petition, that suspension order cannot continue beyond three months.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the suspension order is of 12.01.2021 and a period of almost six months have lapsed and no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner co