The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a lawyer seeking a departmental enquiry against a Jal Nigam employee, holding that a stranger or a “busybody” lacks the locus standi to initiate such proceedings. Justice Ajay Bhanot, presiding over the single-judge bench, concluded that the petition was an abuse of the court’s process, actuated by malafide intentions, and reiterated the established legal principle that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are not maintainable in service matters.
The Court imposed a unique penalty on the petitioner, a practising lawyer, directing him to assist the trial court in Gautam Budh Nagar in five cases on a pro bono basis.
Background of the Case
The writ petition (WRIT A No. 6124 of 2025) was filed by Sultan Choudhary, a lawyer, praying for the court to direct a departmental enquiry against Sanjay Vidhuri, an Assistant Engineer with the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam in Ghaziabad. The petitioner, appearing in person, claimed to have worked for the welfare of society, though the court noted that “apart from this bald averment no material is in the record to establish the credentials of the petitioner.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Bhanot began the analysis by establishing that the petitioner had no connection to the case. The judgment states, “The petitioner is neither an employee of the Jal Nigam, nor the disciplinary authority of the said Sanjay Vidhuri @ Sanjay Kumar.” The court observed that the service conditions of government employees are governed by specific service rules, which nominate disciplinary authorities competent to take action against misconduct.
The court emphasized the importance of these rules in protecting government servants from external pressures. “The service rules also insulate the government employees from extraneous influences and pressure which may impede faithful discharge of government duties,” the judgment reads. “The service rules are bulwark of independence of government servants and enable them to function without fear of any outside interference.”
The court strongly deprecated the practice of entertaining complaints from third parties, stating, “Entertaining complaints from the outsiders who are busybodies and interlopers will have far reaching consequences on the functioning of government. Such action will adversely impact the morale of the government servants and will be detrimental to the efficiency of the Government.”
On the crucial issue of locus standi, the court held that the petitioner failed to establish his right to file the petition. Citing the Supreme Court in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P., the judgment noted that relief under Article 226 is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. It further relied on Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, where the Supreme Court held that “a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding” and that a “person aggrieved” must have suffered a “legal injury,” not a “psychological or an imaginary injury.”
The judgment also extensively discussed the non-maintainability of PILs in service matters, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal. The court observed that allowing such litigation would defeat the purpose of speedy disposal of service matters and that courts must “filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs.”
Concluding that the petition was filed with malicious intent, the court made a sharp observation: “Litigation cannot be a sport for the mischievous and courts are not the play field for interlopers.” It found the petition to be “actuated by malafides and is an abuse of the process of the Court,” intended to “harass and blackmail” the employee.
The court also commented on the petitioner’s status as a lawyer, stating, “There is a special responsibility cast on members of the Bar to be dutiful citizens and not exploit their privileges of being a lawyer by initiating such malafides litigation.”
Decision and Penalty
In light of these findings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
As a penalty for abusing the judicial process, the court directed the petitioner, Shri Sultan Chaudhary, Advocate, to “assist the trial court in Gautam Budh Nagar in five cases on a probono basis.” The District Legal Services Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar, was instructed to allocate the cases to him.
The court clarified that its order would not influence any separate proceedings pending against the respondent employee before other authorities, including the Lok Ayukta.
