The petitioner was suspended from service as per Exhibit P1 order. At the relevant time, he was working as Hostel Attendant under the second respondent. He submitted several applications for review of the said order inter alia contending that similarly placed persons have already been reinstated in service, who are working in other departments. Petitioner's applications for review had been rejected by way of Exhibits P3 and P4. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case as evident from Exhibit P1. The offences are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 385 of the Explosive Substance Act. In so far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned and the power to suspend the employee from service, it is purely within the discretion of WP(C).27655/14 2 the disciplinary authority. This Court cannot interfere in such proceedings. Since the applications for review filed by the petitioner have already been disposed of, I do not think that this Court can interfere with the order of suspension at this stage.
3. The fact that some other persons involved in the same crime have been reinstated in service in other departments cannot be a reason to call upon the disciplinary authority to cancel the petitioner's order of suspension. That by itself cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of suspension.
In the result, there being no basis to interfere with Exhibits P1, P3 and P4, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
vgs23/10/14 A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE