- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4010 OF 2022

SUNIL LAHU JADHAV AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr.P.B.Rakhunde, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.P.S.Patil, AGP for State.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND

S.G. DIGE, JJ.)

DATE : APRIL 1, 2022

PER COURT :

1.

We have perused the objections as regards Page Nos. 22, 27, 32,

37, 39, 44, 45, 51 and 42. We find that these documents can be read

and, therefore, the objections stand over rulled.

2.

By this petition, the petitioners have put forth prayer clause "C",

"D" and "E" as under :-

"C. The impugned Decision and Order dtd. 12.06.2018 passed

by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at

Aurangabad in Original Application No.858/2016 and show

cause notice dated 14.03.2022 issued by Deputy Superintendent

of Police (Head Quarter), Nanded, may kindly be quashed and

khs/April 2022/4010

- 2 -

set aside.

D. To remand the matter back to the Ld. Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal Bench at Aurangabad by permitting the

petitioners to amend the Original Application No.858/2016 to

challenge the Final Inquiry Report.

E. During the pendency of this writ petition, the effect of Show

Cause Notice dated 14.03.2022 issued by Deputy

Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Nanded, may kindly

be stayed in the interest of Justice."

3.

The petitioners' Advocate has strenuously canvassed the grounds

formulated in the petition and contends that the show cause notice

dated 14/03/2022 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head

Quarters, Nanded), is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that

the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has passed an order

on 12/06/2018 disposing off the Original Application No.858/2016

filed by the petitioners. His thrust is on the show cause notice dated

14/03/2022.

4.

The order dated 12/06/2018 passed by the learned Tribunal

reads as under :-

"1. Heard Shri I.D.Maniyar, learned Advocate holding for

Shri.A.T.Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the applicants and Shri

khs/April 2022/4010

- 3 -

N.U.Yadav, learned Presenting Officer for the respondents.

2. Learned Advocate Shri I.D. Maniyar holding for Shri.

A.T.Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the applicants, on

instructions, submits that the departmental enquiry is now

concluded. The challenge in the present Original Application was

to the very initiation of the departmental enquiry.

3. In view of the above, nothing survives in the present Original

Application and same is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to file

fresh O.A., in case any exigency arises."

5.

It is apparent that the show cause notice dated 14/15th March

2022 is in pursuance to the conclusion of the departmental enquiry. It

is thus in the nature of a second show cause notice as can be seen from

the law laid down by the Hon'

ble Apex Court in the matter of

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B.Karunakar and

others [(1993) 4 SCC 727] keeping in view the 42nd amendment to

the Constitution, by which a second show cause notice calling upon an

employee to show cause is permissible.

6.

Considering the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act,

the petitioners cannot approach this Court directly. Moreover, it is

purely a second show cause notice and if the petitioners contend that

khs/April 2022/4010

- 4 -

the authority issuing the notice is lacking in jurisdiction, the petitioners

can tender a detailed reply and rely on the provisions of Law to make

out a case that the notice is without jurisdiction. For the said reasons,

we do not find it appropriate to exercise our extra-ordinary powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7.

We are also of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal

is logical and appropriate. It cannot be termed as perverse or

erroneous.

8.

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.

( S.G. DIGE, J. )

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/April