[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Karkare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9548
1 WP-210-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 210 of 2017
SANDEEP KARKARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surya Pratap Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - GA for the respondents/State.
Shri Shivam Kumar- Advocate for respondent no. 3.
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 7/12/2016
(Annexure P/1), whereby, the Secretary of respondent no.3- Society has asked
him to show cause as to why the departmental enquiry for dismissing him from
service be not initiated against him. This Court vide order dated 11/1/2017,
restrained respondent no.3 from referring the matter to the State Govt. for
termination of the petitioner's service. Said interim order is continuing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned show cause
notice dated 7/12/2016 is bad in law inasmuch as it has relied upon some enquiry
which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and in which the petitioner
was never given opportunity of being heard. As per his submission, such findings
cannot be relied upon for recording adverse findings against the petitioner. He also
submitted that the authority has already made up its mind and, therefore, issuance
of show cause notice is only an eyewash and petitioner would be dismissed from
service based upon findings already recorded. He therefore, prayed for setting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9548
2 WP-210-2017
aside of the impugned show cause notice.
3. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned notice.
He raised an objection regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground that
only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. He relied upon the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Union Of India & Another vs Kunisetty
Satyanarayana reported in (2006)12 SCC 28 .
4. Learned counsel for the State further argued that the petitioner has been
issued show cause notice, and therefore, he should file reply to the same and
independent departmental enquiry will be conducted in the matter. He thus,
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
6. Even though, the petitioner has been asked to submit show cause vide
impugned notice dated 7/12/2016, the findings recoded in various paragraph
reflect that the petitioner has already been found guilty of allegations. When the
petitioner is yet to be heard and the enquiry is to be conducted, recording of such
findings may prejudice the case of petitioner in the enquiry. This impugned show
cause notice gives a legitimate apprehension to the petitioner about the Authority
being pre-determined to hold him guilty and to impose punishment of dismissal
from service without first considering the response sought by impugned show
cause notice.
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Solanki Vs. M.P.
Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. & Ors. in W.P. No.19240/2018 has
considered somewhat similar issue. It was a case where a show cause notice was
issued by disciplinary authority and simultaneously it proposed punishment also
in the same notice. Dealing with this situation, the Court held in para 6 & 7 as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9548
3 WP-210-2017
under:
"6. Thus, though the Disciplinary Authority was not legally bound to
issue impugned show-cause notice but while doing it has proposed
penalty in the said show cause notice thereby disclosing it's mind as
regards final decision and the quantum of punishment. However, this
impugned show cause notice has given a legitimate apprehension to the
petitioner about the Disciplinary Authority being prejudiced for
demonstrating a premeditated mind qua accepting the inculpatory
findings of Enquiry Officer and the type of penalty without first
considering the response sought by impugned show cause notice.
7. Consequently, in the opinion of this court the affording of a third
opportunity by issuing impugned show cause notice though cannot be
found fault with but while doing so the Disciplinary Authority should
not have proposed any punishment in the impugned show cause notice,
P/1. This court is thus compelled to interfere in the present matter to a
limited extent by disposing of this petition in the following terms:
(a) The petitioner shall file reply to the impugned show cause notice
within a period of 30 (Thirty) days from today which shall be
considered by the Disciplinary Authority without being prejudiced by
the punishment proposed in the impugned show cause notice, P/1,
dated 1/8/2018.
(b) The Disciplinary Authority while considering response of petitioner
shall not only consider the implicative evidence in the enquiry report
but also the defence of the delinquent employee/petitioner submitted
earlier by way of two responses to the enquiry report and the third
response to the impugned show cause notice and thereafter decide on
the question of acceptance or otherwise of the Enquiry Officer's
findings and if findings are accepted then on the question of quantum of
penalty without being influenced by the proposed punishment in the
impugned show cause notice, as expeditiously as possible by passing a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9548
4 WP-210-2017
speaking order."
8. The case of Ashok Solanki (supra) was the one where departmental
enquiry was only concluded and final show cause notice was issued to delinquent.
However, in the case in hand, no enquiry has been conducted in presence of
petitioner. Whatever is done, is behind the back of petitioner. Therefore, the
impugned show cause notice containing all the adverse findings could not have
been issued to the petitioner. Rather, he was required to be given notice/charge
sheet containing allegations levelled against him and the explanation should have
been sought from him.
9. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned show cause notice dated
7/12/2016 (Annexure P/1) is found to be unsustainable in law and is accordingly
set aside. The respondent no.3 is given liberty to take fresh steps for conducting
enquiry into the matter. However, same should be without being influenced by
observations and findings recorded in the show cause notice.
10. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
