D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner has been suspended some time in 1993. It is alleged that a criminal case is pending out of the same prosecution. Mr. R. K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks parity with another person who was also involved in the transaction and was similarly suspended has since been reinstated after revoking the order of suspension. The petitioner has also applied for revocation of the order of suspension. The respondents did not decide the petitioner's application for revocation of suspension. He submits that one of the co-delinquents has since been released from the order of suspension, on the doctrine of parity, the petitioner should also be released from the suspension. Therefore, he prays that the order of suspension should be quashed.
(2.) Shri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that there cannot be any concept of parity in respect of revocation of suspension if there are grounds for distinguishing the involvement of the persons in the charges levelled. It is for the employer to decide as to whom should be kept under suspension and in whose case the order of suspension could be revoked. It is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case Individually. According to him, the gravity of the petitioner's involvement is greater than that of the person who has been released from the order of suspension. He further contends that the charges levelled against other person was examined and found that it is not necessary to continue him under suspension. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the continuity of the petitioner under suspension. Further he contends that in case if the application for revocation of the order of suspension of the petitioner has not been decided, the respondent would decide the same in accordance with law.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.;