JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Sri Pushpendra Singh has appeared for the respondent No. 3.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.2.2000 expunging the adverse entry granted to the respondent No. 4. In our opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter as the matter was between the respondent No. 4 and the Government.
3. in our opinion. If any adverse entry or punishment is given to any employee and subsequently, the same is quashed by the higher authority or by the Tribunal, any other employee cannot challenge the order cancelling that entry or punishment, otherwise there will be no end to the dispute in this regard. The disciplinary matters are between the delinquent employee and the Government, and other Government employees have nothing to do in this.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakhi Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1655, and submitted that in view of this judgment, any other Government officer can challenge the order expunging the adverse remarks. The decision in Lakhi Ram's case (supra), was delivered by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, in Chandra Cupta v. Government of India, 1995 SCC (L & S) 210, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court took, a contrary view vide paragraph 23 of that decision, which states that there is no locus standi in other persons for challenging the expunctlon of the adverse entry given to an employee. In view of the three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta's case (supra), we are of the opinion that the decision in Lakhi Ram which is a two-Judge Bench decision is not good law, and has been impliedly overruled by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta's case (supra). Hence, in our opinion, the petitioner has no focus standi in the matter.
5. The petition is dismissed.