JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the State authorities to put Opposite Party No. 5 under suspension and further to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for ill-treating his domestic servant who committed suicide and in pursuance of the reporting made by the Petitioner, a criminal prosecution has been lodged against him. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner claims himself to be a Pressman and a social activist and is publisher of a local Oriya newspaper in the name and style "Saitan" at Patnagarh. He reported a news-item that a Class-IV ill-health employee was being harassed and exploited by his superior officer intentionally and deliberately. Therefore, due to exploitation the said employee committed suicide leaving a suicidal hand note. An FIR was lodged and Opposite Party No. 5 was arrested by the local police and was inside the custody for at least one week. However, no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him nor he was suspended as per O.C.S. (CCA.) Rules, which required that under the said Rules a Government servant who is detained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by an order of the appointing authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. Hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the requirement of law, Opposite Party No. 5 ought to have been suspended and disciplinary proceedings ought to have been initiated against him and this Curt must ask the Opposite Parties-authorities to explain their conduct as under what circumstances the disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated against the Opposite Party No. 5. 4. The matter was heard earlier on 19th March, 2009 and as the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to satisfy the Court regarding the locus-standi of the Petitioner, the case was adjourned for 24th March, 2009. Even on that date adjournment was sought to prepare this case and therefore it was listed 30th March, 2009. 4. The matter was heard earlier on 19th March, 2009 and as the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to satisfy the Court regarding the locus-standi of the Petitioner, the case was adjourned for 24th March, 2009. Even on that date adjournment was sought to prepare this case and therefore it was listed 30th March, 2009. Even on that date also Learned Counsel for the Petitioner asked for time to prepare the case further, but we refused to accede to the request as the petition should be filed after preparing the case and in spite of fact that matter had been adjourned twice to facilitate the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner to answer the quarry regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition itself. 5. We have heard the matter at length and perused the record. 6. In this petition, the Petitioner claims himself to be a public spirited person and he is a publisher of a local newspaper in the name and style "Saitan" which means "devil". However, we are not concerned with its name or about the newspaper or about the Petitioner. But in a case like this, the Court has to examine the bona fide of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to render any assistance as under what circumstances or what authority Petitioner has approached this Court. 7. It is settled law that a person who suffers from legal injury only can challenge the act/action/order etc. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the Petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the Respondents. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement on which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. (Vide The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, ; Saghir Ahmad Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, ; Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1183 ; The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and Others Vs. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. (Vide The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, ; Saghir Ahmad Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, ; Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1183 ; The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and Others Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros. and Others, ; Shri K. Ramadas Shenoy Vs. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and Others, ; Hans Raj Kehar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, ; Mani Subrat Jain and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, ; Thammanna Vs. K. Veera Reddy and Others, ; State of Kerala Vs. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty and others, ; State of Kerala and Others Vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai and Others, ; Mithilesh Garg, Vs. Union of India and others etc. etc., ; Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, ; Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor and Others, ; Utkal University Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Others, ; Laxminarayan R. Bhattad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, ; Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Share Holders Welfare Association Vs. S.C. Sekar and Others, ). 8. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, held as under: The Article in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder; but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. In The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta this Court has ruled that the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others it has been held by this Court that the legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the Petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief.... The question, therefore, is whether in the present case the Petitioner has a legal right and whether it has been infringed by the contesting Respondents. 9. The "legal right" means an entitlement arising out of legal Rules. The question, therefore, is whether in the present case the Petitioner has a legal right and whether it has been infringed by the contesting Respondents. 9. The "legal right" means an entitlement arising out of legal Rules. Thus it may be defined as an advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law. (vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji Vs. The Home Insurance Co. of New York, and State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, ). 10. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Others the Apex Court has held that only a person who is aggrieved by an order, can maintain a Writ Petition. The expression "aggrieved person" has been explained by the Apex Court observing that such a person must show that he has more particular or peculiar interest on his own beyond that of general public in seeing that the law is properly administered. 11. The term "person aggrieved" was also considered and defined in Re" Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch.D. 458, wherein it has been observed as under: The words 'person aggrieved' do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. 12. In Ram Singh and Anr. v. Director of Consolidation and Ors. 1968 AWR 844, the Court held that the expression "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from psychological or imaginary injury; the person aggrieved must necessarily be one whose right or interest is adversely affected or jeopardised, and not who suffers from psychological or imaginary injury. 13. In Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Others the Supreme Court again considered the meaning of "person aggrieved" and "locus of a rival government undertaking" and held that a rival businessman cannot maintain a Writ Petition on the ground that its business prospects would be adversely affected. However, in the said case, the Union of India's Writ Petition was held to be maintainable in larger public interest. 14. In Thammanna Vs. However, in the said case, the Union of India's Writ Petition was held to be maintainable in larger public interest. 14. In Thammanna Vs. K. Veera Reddy and Others the Supreme Court held that although the meaning of expression "person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the Statute and facts of the case nevertheless normally, a person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance; a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongfully refused something, or wrongfully affected his title to someone. However, in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others Etc. Etc. the Supreme Court rejected the claim of a stranger to maintain a Writ Petition even in Public Interest. 15. In M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Others the Supreme Court considered the matter at length and placed reliance upon a large number of its earlier Judgments including the Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrimadas (2000) 7 SCC 465; and held that the Court must examine the issue of locus standi from all angles and the Petitioner should be asked to disclose as what is the legal injury suffered by him. 16. In Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal and Others the Supreme Court considered the similar issue and observed as under: There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a Writ Petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the Petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a Writ Petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the Petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds...In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi. 17. In Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the selection of a person on the ground that the Petitioner therein had been unsuccessful candidate and could not challenge the appointment of the successful candidate on the ground that the Writ Petitioner himself did not have the requisite experience and eligibility for the said post and could not be a person aggrieved. 18. In S.S. and Company Vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Limited the Writ Petition challenging the amendment in the eligibility criteria was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner therein did not fulfil even the requisite eligibility as per the unamended clause. Therefore, the Court held that he has no locus standi to challenge the amendment in the criteria. 19. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka Vs. University of Mumbai and Others a similar view was taken by the Apex Court observing that if a person claiming the relief is not eligible as per requirement, he cannot be held to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or selection of other persons. Therefore, the party has to satisfy as what is the legal injury caused by that violation of law for the redressal of which the party has approached the Court. 20. In Chandra Gupta, I.F.S. Vs. The Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and others the question arose as to whether an officer has a right to challenge the order of expunging the adverse remarks in the Confidential Character Roll (CCR) of another officer. 20. In Chandra Gupta, I.F.S. Vs. The Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests and others the question arose as to whether an officer has a right to challenge the order of expunging the adverse remarks in the Confidential Character Roll (CCR) of another officer. The Apex Court held that the CCR are supposed to remain confidential and even the officer concerned against whom the entries are made had hardly any chance of knowing about the entires. Of course it is a different matter if an adverse entry is made and communicated to him, in that situation he has a right to make representation. But once a decision is taken by the competent authority for expunging those- remarks, no legal right or the locus standi given to any person to challenge the expunction of adverse entries. 21. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court consider its earlier Judgment in Lakhi Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, wherein it had been held that the effect of expunction of adverse entry may be challenged by other officers as it may adversely affect his chance of being considered for promotion. 22. In Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta the Apex Court considered a case against an employee against whom civil and criminal proceedings could be initiated and observed that in an appropriate case criminal action also maintainable along with civil action, if the act constituted both a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. However, it may be open to the competent authority to condone either of that and may take recourse only to one. 23. Article 311(2) of the Constitution provides that a person holding a civil post can not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank without holding giving disciplinary proceeding the and without reasonable opportunity of hearing. Further, the disciplinary proceedings can always be dispensed with and a person can be removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. 24. Thus, in such a fact situation, where the Opposite Party No. 5 is facing criminal proceedings it may not be necessary for the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him at this stage. 25. 24. Thus, in such a fact situation, where the Opposite Party No. 5 is facing criminal proceedings it may not be necessary for the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him at this stage. 25. In the instant case, the offence for which the said Opposite Party No. 5 if facing criminal charge does not relate to office as it is a case of ill-treatment to the domestic servant. As the misconduct does not relate to office and has not been committed in the course of employment or at the place of employment or in connection with the employment of the employee, the disciplinary proceedings may not even be permissible. (vide Amit Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2007 Lab.I.C. 1295. 26. More so it is also settled legal proposition that where criminal case and departmental proceedings are held concurrently on the same charge and based on identical set of facts and the charge in criminal case is of grave nature which involves complicated question of law and fact, the Court may stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal trial. 27. As explained above, we have heard this matter at length on 19th March, 2009 and passed the following order. List this matter on Tuesday (24.3.2009). On that date the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner may satisfy the Court how the Petitioner has a prima facie case to file this PIL and whether in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others Etc. Etc., ; and Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra 2005 AIR SCW 46, PIL in service matter is maintainable. 28. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to render any assistance to the Court that under what circumstances the petition filed by a stranger in service matter is maintainable. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 29. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed