HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8482/2012 Shabano W/o Shri Altaf Hussain D/o Shri Hussain Mohammad, r/o Sharamik Colony, Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur. 3. Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota. 4. Superintendent of Police, Baran. 5. Altaf Hussain S/o Ishaq Mohammad, Constable 371 Driver, Police Station Anta, District Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta-A.G.C. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/02/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.11.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority by which the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been quashed and set aside and the dismissal order of the respondent No. 5 has been ordered to be converted into the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint filed by the petitioner by which domestic enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) (2 of 4) [CW-8482/2012] Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) was conducted against the respondent No. 5 who is her husband. It was alleged in the aforesaid complaint that without dissolution of the first marriage with the petitioner, respondent No.5 has performed second marriage, and the said conduct amounts to misconduct under the Rajasthan Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1971 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1971’). Counsel submits that in the enquiry conducted against respondent No. 5 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, it was found that the second marriage performed by the respondent No. 5 was invalid and such act was considered to be a misconduct and accordingly, a decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss him from service. Counsel submits that the dismissal order was assailed by the respondent No. 5 before the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority under its extraordinary jurisdiction recorded a finding that under the Muslim Law, a person is permitted to perform more than one marriage, accordingly the dismissal order was quashed and the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment was passed against the respondent No. 5. Counsel submits that by passing the order impugned, the Appellate Authority has deprived the petitioner of her rights in the property of the respondent No.5, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that with regard to the same dispute, father of the petitioner has also approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4519/2011 titled as Hussain Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. However, the same was dismissed on the ground of his (3 of 4) [CW-8482/2012] locus standi. Counsel submits that in the instant case as well the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority, hence under these circumstances, this petition is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the instant case is a family disputes between the petitioner and her husband i.e. respondent No. 5. The job of the petitioner was over when the inquiry was initiated against the respondent No.5 upon the complaint submitted by her with regard to the solemnization of second marriage by the respondent No. 5. Now the matter is between the employee and employer as to what action is required to be taken against the delinquent-respondent No. 5 and if a major or minor punishment is imposed upon the delinquent- respondent No. 5, the petitioner’s family members have no concern whatsoever with the punishment imposed upon such delinquent. 6. The petitioner being wife of the respondent No. 5 has no locus standi to assail the impugned order before this Court by way of filing this petition against the order of lesser punishment imposed upon the husband. A similar view has already been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding the writ petition submitted by the father of the petitioner (i.e. Hussain Mohammad) vide order dated 04.04.2011 with the following observations:- “The petitioner might have a personal/family dispute with respondent-5 (Government servant) who happens (4 of 4) [CW-8482/2012] to be his son-in-law but in the present facts & circumstances, being employee, for alleged misconduct, regular inquiry was initiated in which he was initially inflicted with penalty of dismissal from service, which was assailed in appeal and was later on converted into stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dt.03/11/2010, which in the opinion of this Court, does not give any locus standi to the petitioner to question by way of instant petition.” 7. This Court finds no valid reason to take a different view against the view which has already been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the aforesaid petition filed by father of the petitioner in the case of Hussain Mohammad (Supra). 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition also deserves the same treatment and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/116