[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Amit Suresh Jadhav vs The Additional Director General Of ... on 18 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6655 OF 2026
Amit Suresh Jadhav .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Additional Director
General of Police (Administration)
and Others .. Respondents
Ms. Surekha H. Das, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Additional G.P. for the Respondents-State.
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 18TH MAY 2026
[VACATION COURT]
P.C. :
1. The Petitioner, who was serving as a Police Constable challenged
the impugned show cause notice dated 15th April 2026 by filing Original
Application No.424 of 2026 before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal ("Tribunal"). Admittedly, the Petitioner has not filed any reply
to the said show cause notice and directly approached the Tribunal
principally on the ground that the issuing authority notice lacks
jurisdiction and competency to do so. By the impugned order dated 8th
4 WP-6655-2026(1).doc bdpsps
May 2026, the Tribunal declined to grant interim protection and directed
that the matter be listed on 12th June 2026, with an observation that the
Original Application itself may be taken up for final hearing at the stage
of admission. Aggrieved by the refusal of interim relief, the Petitioner
has preferred the present Petition, pleading urgency on the apprehension
that he may be dismissed from service, thereby rendering the pending
Original Application infructuous.
2. We have heard Ms. Surekha H. Das, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. It appears
that preliminary objections have been raised by the Respondents to the
maintainability as also on the merits of the Original Application before
the Tribunal. The Tribunal has consciously kept all such issues open for
consideration and has specifically observed that the matter may itself be
finally heard on 12th June 2026. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner
has not yet submitted any reply to the impugned show cause notice and
has instead sought to challenge the same at a pre-decisional stage.
3. At this stage, when the Tribunal itself may consider the matter
finally within a short period of time, we do not find any compelling
circumstance warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction. Even
4 WP-6655-2026(1).doc bdpsps
otherwise, no prima facie case is made out for granting any interim
protection, more so when the Petitioner has not availed the opportunity
of responding to the show cause notice. Be that as it may, the Petitioner
is at liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice, if so advised.
3. List the matter on 1st July 2026.
[ SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.]
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
4 WP-6655-2026(1).doc bdpsps
