Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Nath Bali vs Court, is not helpful to her in the instant case.

Judgment

5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Joint Secretary (Admn.), Medical Education (Group-I), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Deputy Secretary (Admn.), Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan (K-3/inquiry) Department, Jaipur. Principle-Cum-Controller, Sms Medical College And Hospital, Jaipur

Dr. Prabhat Kanwariya S/o Shri Tulsiram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 1, Parihar Nagar, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur Office At S.n. Medical College, Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Jayanti Mala, the petitioner present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 18/09/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated

22.09.2023 passed by the official respondents whereby, the respondent No.5-Dr. Prabhat Kanwariya has been punished, in an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity “the Rules of 1958”), with the penalty of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner claiming herself to be the wife of Dr. Kanwariya, submits that since, on account of misconduct by him, her matrimonial rights have been infringed, the order impugned requires to be interfered with in the manner that a graver punishment be substituted in place of the penalty inflicted. [2025:RJ-JP:38159] (2 of 5) [CW-8882/2025] When confronted with the issue of her locus to assail the order impugned, she made the following submissions:-

1. She is a victim of misconduct by the respondent No.5.

2. On an earlier occasion, this Court has entertained the SB Civil Writ Petition No.20437/2019 preferred by her in the same departmental proceeding.

3. The issue of locus is not of much significance in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M R Ajayan versus The State of Kerala & Ors. and another connected matter: 2024 INSC 8881. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be entertained and the order impugned dated 22.09.2023 be interfered with. Heard. Considered. As already observed, vide order impugned dated

22.09.2023, after conducting an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, Dr. Kanwariya has been punished in the manner as stated hereinabove. The allegation against him was of entering into an invalid (void-ab-initio) marriage with Geeta - a married minor girl accepting hefty dowry while in Government service and thereby, was guilty of grave misconduct violating Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Indisputably, the matter of disciplinary proceeding is an issue between the employer and the employee with a stranger having no say. Merely because the petitioner happens to be the wife of the delinquent employee, this Court is not satisfied that she has locus to assail the validity of the order impugned on the ground of penalty not being sufficiently grave. It is a well settled legal principle that in service matters, a stranger is not entitled to [2025:RJ-JP:38159] (3 of 5) [CW-8882/2025] intermeddle. The disciplinary authority has punished the respondent No.5 with one of the major penalties as envisaged under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 exercising its judicious discretion which warrants no interference at the behest of the petitioner who is not found to have any locus to assail the same. Further, it is trite law that to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner must establish violation of his/her legal or fundamental right. Only a person who has suffered or suffers any legal injury can challenge the action/omission aggrieved against. There must be a legally enforceable right for invoking the writ jurisdiction. This Court does not find the petitioner to have any such legally recognised right or corresponding legal obligation upon the official respondents seeking a judicial review of the order punishing the respondent No.5 under the Rules of 1958. True it is that on earlier occasion, this Court has entertained SB Civil Writ Petition No.20437/2019 preferred by the petitioner seeking expeditious disposal of the enquiry; however, a perusal of order dated 17.02.2023 passed therein does not reveal that the issue of “locus standi” of the petitioner was one of the consideration. A direction to conclude the department enquiry within the period of three months was given taking into consideration the precedential law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Nath Bali versus Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.: Civil Appeal No.958/2010 decided on 16.12.2015. Therefore, entertainment of earlier writ petition filed by her, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not helpful to her in the instant case. [2025:RJ-JP:38159] (4 of 5) [CW-8882/2025] In the case of M R Ajayan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India entertained the criminal appeal preferred by a public-spirited person in the peculiar facts of the case wherein, allegation against the accused persons was of substituting an article in the criminal case in favour of an accused being tried under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 resulting into his acquittal by the High Court and on an investigation by the Vigilance Officer of the High Court of Kerala, it was found that this article was replaced by a Court staff with the help of the counsel for the acquitted accused. The High Court quashed the criminal proceeding initiated against the member of Court staff and the counsel on the premise that it was hit by bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. While entertaining the appeal against the quashing of the criminal proceeding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying upon a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of P.S.R. Sadhanantham versus Arunachalam & Anr. :(1980) 3 SCC 141 wherein, it was held that since, offence is considered to be a wrong committed against the society, the prosecution against the accused person is launched by the State, it is the duty of the State to get the culprit booked for the offence committed by him, and the focal point, here, is that if the State fails in this regard and the party having bona fide connection with the cause of action, who is aggrieved by the order of the Court cannot be left at the mercy of the State and without any option to approach the appellate Court for seeking justice, held in para 18 and 19 as under:- “18. More recently, similar to the case at hand, in Naveen Singh v. State of [2025:RJ-JP:38159] (5 of 5) [CW-8882/2025] U.P. (2- Judge Bench)7, while considering the locus of the Petitioner therein, this Court observed that since the allegations concerned tampering with the order of the Court, hence locus is not that important but, in fact, insignificant with the State not carrying forward the matter any further. 19. In view of the above expositions of law, we are of the considered view that the locus standi of the appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024, does not come in the (2021) 6 SCC 191 way of this Court hearing the same. The case at hand, which has been quashed by the High Court, involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes which strike at the very foundation of both dispensation and the administration of justice. Therefore, the first issue is answered in the affirmative as it is incumbent upon this Court to check the correctness of the approach adopted by the High Court, and the locus of the appellant would not come in the way of the same.” Thus, the relaxation of the principle of “locus standi” by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not apply in the instant case wherein, the respondent No.5-a Government servant has been punished by the official respondents in a departmental enquiry conducted under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 with one of the major penalties envisaged under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Manish/s-223 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J