MP HC Declines PIL Seeking Dismissal And FIR Against Five Officials Over Alleged Road-Repair Irregularities, Citing Bar On Service-Matter PILs

The petitioner, a retired agent of LIC Housing Finance, alleged irregularities in pothole-repair works and the purchase and payment for road-construction materials. He sought to quash orders imposing lenient penalties, obtain reconsideration of disciplinary action and recovery of the allegedly embezzled amount, and have an FIR registered against five officials.

An earlier writ petition had been withdrawn with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy; the petitioner then filed the present petition under Article 226 as a PIL.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle that PILs are generally not maintainable in service matters, except in a case seeking a writ of quo warranto.

Relying on Girjesh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 707, and the authorities discussed there—including Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, and Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655—the Court reiterated that a stranger’s PIL should not be entertained where the dispute concerns service matters.

The relief sought concerned the discipline and employment consequences applicable to the officials, matters governed by the relevant service rules and departmental procedures. The Court considered the petition to invite it to undertake an exercise otherwise contemplated through departmental procedure.

Applying the rule against PILs in service matters, it declined to entertain the petition and left the petitioner to approach an appropriate authority.

The Court disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioner to agitate the cause before an appropriate authority.