A third party cannot seek to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of directing the authorities to initiate/conclude departmental action against a Government employee.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action upon the petitioner's complaint, dated 01.11.2021, praying to conduct an Departmental Enquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the proposed Accused therein within the time stipulated by this Court and for other reliefs.)

1.By consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner herein seeks for a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate action upon the petitioner's complaint, dated 01.11.2021, praying to conduct an Departmental Enquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the proposed Accused therein.

3. In identical circumstances, this Court had dealt with the issue as to the rights of the third parties to seek for departmental action against a Government employee, wherein, it has been held that the decision to initiate such departmental proceedings lies within the scope and authority of the concerned disciplinary authority and it is not for the third parties to seek to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of directing the authorities to initiate/conclude such action. Relying upon a few of such decisions, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others, passed in W.P.(MD).No.8871 of 2018, dated 26.04.2018, has upheld this ratio in the following manner:

'' 8. The learned senior counsel, in response would submit that, the law is well settled in this regard as a third party cannot stand in the way in between the employee and the employer in matters of service disputes, especially in the context of disciplinary proceedings.

9. In this regard, the learned senior counsel would rely upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case Rajnit Prasad vs., Union of India and others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 313. The learned senior counsel has relied upon paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 and the same which reads as under:

“8. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of "locus standi" has been widened by this Court through its various decisions and, that too, in the field of Public Interest Litigation where it has been said that Public Interest Litigation can be initiated not only by filing petitions in the High Court or in this Court in a regular manner but also by means of letters and telegrams addressed to the Court. (See : People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India , Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India , State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla and Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa.

9. But a mere busy-body who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

10. In view of the above