A stranger to service matters lacks locus standi to challenge an employee’s suspension or reinstatement.

The petitioner alleged that she had married respondent No. 6, a Sub-Engineer, on 16 April 2019 and that he contracted a second marriage without obtaining a divorce from her.

She submitted a complaint seeking disciplinary action against him.

Following the complaint and registration of a criminal case under Sections 82(1), 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, respondent No. 6 was suspended under Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, for alleged violation of Rule 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

On consideration of his representation dated 10 June 2026, the competent authority revoked his suspension by order dated 16 June 2026, while directing that departmental proceedings continue and that the suspension period be dealt with after conclusion of the enquiry.

The petitioner challenged the reinstatement and sought directions for submission of a status report and expeditious completion of the departmental enquiry.

Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the revocation of suspension and continuation in service of respondent No. 6, particularly when she was not claiming infringement of an independent legal right?

Whether the order dated 16 June 2026 revoking respondent No. 6’s suspension, subject to continuation of departmental proceedings, was illegal or perverse so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Whether the Court could direct the competent disciplinary authority to continue the suspension or take specified disciplinary action against respondent No. 6?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that judicial review of an administrative decision concerning suspension and disciplinary proceedings is limited and that interference is warranted only upon establishing illegality or perversity.

It relied on Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 concerning suspension and Rule 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 concerning the alleged misconduct.

Relying on Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Court reiterated that service-related public interest litigation by persons lacking a genuine legal interest should not be entertained and that courts must guard against petitions motivated by personal or oblique purposes.

Under Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465, a person raising a grievance must show legal injury; ordinarily, a stranger cannot interfere in the service affairs of another, subject only to exceptional cases involving genuine public interest and absence of personal motive.

The Court found that the order dated 16 June 2026 had been passed after considering respondent No. 6’s representation and expressly continued the departmental proceedings against him, leaving the treatment of the suspension period to be determined after the enquiry.

The petitioner failed to identify any statutory violation, procedural illegality or perversity in that order.

The Court held that the decision whether to suspend, revoke suspension or proceed departmentally falls primarily within the jurisdiction of the competent disciplinary authority and does not ordinarily warrant interference under Article 226.

It further concluded that the petitioner’s status as the wife of respondent No. 6 demonstrated a personal relationship and disqualified her from presenting the service grievance as a disinterested public interest challenge.

Since she could not show infringement of any independent legal right, she lacked locus standi to challenge respondent No. 6’s service conditions or reinstatement.

The petition was therefore dismissed as not maintainable and devoid of merit, with no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.