JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Both the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are Doctors by profession they were married on 11.5.89 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and thereafter started living as husband and wife. The marital happiness of the parities however, was short lived as on 4.2.93 the respondent No.2 allegedly married one Smt. Banu Afia Rahman again under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The writ petitioner filed a complaint before the appropriate authority of the State contending that while solemnizing the second marriage, the respondent No.2 had made a false statement before the Marriage Officer that he was unmarried and further that the second marriage took place during the validity of the first marriage and as such the respondent No. 2 was guilty of a bigamous marriage which is contrary to the provision of the Rule 26 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Rules) 2. Thereafter, on 10.10.94 a show cause notice under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed by the aforesaid Rules should not be inflicted on him for commission of misconduct and violation of the provisions of the Conduct Rules. The aforesaid show cause, it must be noticed was issued on the allegations of the second marriage of the respondent No. 2, the details of which have been noted. The respondent No. 2 showed caused and thereafter on 30.12.95, the disciplinary authority on perusal of the reply of the respondent No. 2, thought it proper to drop the proceeding sought to be initiated against him. Subsequently, on the same facts, a second show cause notice dated 10.2.98 alleging commission of the same misconduct was brought against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner successfully challenged the aforesaid show cause notice dated 10.2.98 before this Court in CR No.3214/98.The show cause notice dated 10.2.98 was set aside by this Court by order dated 3.1.2002 primarily on the ground that what was attempted by the second show cause dated 10.2.98 was an impermissible review of an earlier closed action. The writ petitioner successfully challenged the aforesaid show cause notice dated 10.2.98 before this Court in CR No.3214/98.The show cause notice dated 10.2.98 was set aside by this Court by order dated 3.1.2002 primarily on the ground that what was attempted by the second show cause dated 10.2.98 was an impermissible review of an earlier closed action. While the matter was resting at that, the writ petitioner i.e. the wife had instituted the present proceeding challenging the order dated 30.12.95 dropping the first show cause notice dated 10.10.94 issued against the respondent No. 2. The somewhat belated challenge made in the present writ petition has been sought to be explained by the writ petitioner by contending that the order-dated 30.12.95 was not brought to her notice at any earlier point of time and she could come to know of the aforesaid order dated 30.12.95 only upon institution of CR No. 3214/98 wherein she was impleaded as a party Respondent. 3. While the writ petition continued to remain pending before this Court certain other developments took place which must be noticed. It appears that a third show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.2.2002 in respect of the same subject matter. The respondent No.2, being aggrieved has instituted WP(C) No. 4776/2002 wherein an interim restraint order has been passed by this court halting the process sought to be initiated by the third show cause notice dated 17.2.2002. While the writ petition No. 4776/2002 continues to remain pending even as on date, the subject matter of challenge i.e. the show cause notice dated 17.2.2002, has been dropped by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 3.5.2003 which has been placed before the Court. The aforesaid order dated 3.5.2003 has been passed primarily on the ground that criminal proceedings instituted against the Respondent No. 2 in respect of contracting the alleged bigamous Marriage has, in the meantime, ended in the acquittal of the Respondent No.2. These are the broad features of the case on which this Court has been called upon to decide whether a writ of mandamus should now be issued to the State compelling the State to pursue the matter concerning the second marriage of the petitioner, which took place in the year 1993, by way of a departmental proceeding. 4. Arguing on behalf of petitioner, Mr. 4. Arguing on behalf of petitioner, Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel, has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 having been solemnized under the Special Marriage Act. the dissolution of the said Marriage must necessarily be under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The Muslim Personal Law will not apply to a marriage registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and therefore, this Court must hold that the marriage between the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 2 subsists even today and the second marriage solemnized by the respondent No. 2 continues to remain a bigamous marriage attracting Rule 26 of the Conduct Rules. In view of the admitted violation of the provisions of the Conduct Rules, the writ petitioner is guilty of an impermissible conduct and, therefore, notwithstanding the long efflux of time, this Court must direct the State to bring the matter to a logical conclusion by holding and completing the requisite departmental proceeding. 5. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, in his very strenuous arguments has sought to contend that the writ petitioner will have no locus to maintain the present challenge. Initiation of a departmental proceeding is a matter between the employer and the employee to which the writ petitioner must be held to be a stranger. No legal right of the petitioner having been violated, it is contended, that the petitioner is not entitled to seek enforcement of any such right by a writ of mandamus. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that in any event the marriage between the parties having been dissolved by a divorce effected under the Muslim Personal Law and the parties having ceased to be husband and wife, there can be hardly any justification to issue any direction as prayed for. 6. The rival submissions advanced by the parties have been duly considered. The writ petitioner being the wife and being instrumental in the initiation of proceeding against the respondent No.2 must be understood to be a person aggrieved by what has been contended to an abrupt and arbitrary closure of said proceeding. 6. The rival submissions advanced by the parties have been duly considered. The writ petitioner being the wife and being instrumental in the initiation of proceeding against the respondent No.2 must be understood to be a person aggrieved by what has been contended to an abrupt and arbitrary closure of said proceeding. If the writ petitioner has been recognized to have a say in the initiation of the proceeding, surely, she must be understood to have an equal say in the manner of conduct of the proceeding and the orders passed therein. This Court, therefore, would not like to foreclose the writ petition on the basis of the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 7. The subsequent developments in the case as noticed above as well as a perusal of the order dated 3.5.03 placed on record, would go to show that notwithstanding the impugned order dated 30.12.95 the proceeding earlier dropped had been resurrected by issuing a fresh notice dated 17.2.2002. In the meantime, the criminal case instituted against the Respondent No. 2 on the allegation of contracting a bigamous marriage has ended in the acquittal of the Respondent. Consequently, the disciplinary authority has by order dated 3.5.2003 has again dropped the said proceeding. The aforesaid circumstances particularly as the impugned order dated 30.12.95 has been practically reviewed by the disciplinary authority by issuing the third show cause notice dated 17.2.2002, the remedy of the writ petitioner, if any, lies in challenging the actions subsequent as noticed above, particularly, the order dated 3.5.2003 which has been brought on record. 8. As the criminal case instituted against the Respondent No. 2 on the same facts ended in an acquittal, it will not be proper for this Court to record any finding on the submissions advanced by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that as the marriage between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 has not been dissolved by a decree of divorce under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, the said marriage subsists, rendering the second marriage contracted by the Respondent No.2 bigamous. That apart, this Court has noticed that the impending departmental action and consequential litigations over the issue of the alleged second marriage has dragged on for over a decade now. The Respondent must have expended considerable energy and anxiety on the issue. That apart, this Court has noticed that the impending departmental action and consequential litigations over the issue of the alleged second marriage has dragged on for over a decade now. The Respondent must have expended considerable energy and anxiety on the issue. This court has also been informed that on account of the pendency of the mater, the promotion of the Respondent No.2, which was long due, has been belatedly made. For all the aforesaid reasons, the exercise of the discretionary power of this Court under Article 226 must go in favour of the Respondent No.2. It is, therefore, the considered view of the Court that having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter must be allowed to set at rest and the writ petition closed. Ordered accordingly. No costs.