59-WP-12742-2026.DOC Rekha Patil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12742 OF 2026 The State of Maharashtra, Through Additional Chief Secretary Home Department, Mumbai and Ors. …Petitioners Versus Shailendra Raghunath Nagarkar …Respondent Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General with Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G. P. with Mr. S. P. Kamble, AGP, for the Petitioners-State. Mr. Sandeep Dere with Ms. Aarti Patil Dere, Tanvi Devasthali, for the Respondent. Mr. Suryakant Lavte, Legal Advisor to Director General of Police, Mumbai, present. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATED: 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PC:- 1. Assailing two different orders passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the State of Maharashtra and its Officials are before this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 2. The order dated 12th August, 2026, passed by the learned Tribunal disposing of the Original Application No. 699 of 2026 filed by the Respondent, as Original Applicant, as well as the subsequent order dated 17th September, 2026, passed by the REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2026.09.28 18:36:51 +0530 59-WP-12742-2026.DOC learned Tribunal in Contempt Application No. 77 of 2026 issuing formal notice under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Contempt of Courts) Rules, 1996, in Form-III r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India, with a further direction to the Respondent No.1 (Additional Chief Secretary) to remain personally present on the next date are the subject matter of this Writ Petition. It has been brought to our notice that although, the matter was fixed before the learned Tribunal on 24th September, 2026, yet, the Contempt Case has now been fixed again tomorrow, i.e. on 29th September, 2026, for further proceeding and personal appearance. 3. From a perusal of the order dated 17th September, 2026, we find that the learned Tribunal has taken exception to the fact that the order dated 12th August, 2026, by means of which, a Special DPC was directed to be convened for considering the case of the Respondent/Original Applicant for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, with a further direction to take a decision in the matter within two weeks, was not fully complied with. Although, the Special DPC was held on 9th September, 2026 and the case of the Respondent/Original Applicant was considered 59-WP-12742-2026.DOC in seal cover, yet, due to filing of a charge-sheet against him on 8th September, 2026, no decision was taken on his promotion. By relying upon the Government Resolution dated 15th December, 2017, the Petitioners have contended that the seal cover proceeding cannot be opened until such time, the concerned Official is exonerated from the charge(s) brought against him. 4. Dr. Sathe, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State/ Writ Petitioner has submitted that there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to pass the order dated 17th September, 2026, in a Contempt Petition, recording certain adverse observations against the Departmental Authorities since these issues cannot be decided in a Contempt Case. Dr. Sathe has argued that learned Tribunal has displayed a predetermined mindset and has hastily arrived at a conclusion that there was an attempt to circumvent the order of the Tribunal by failing to consider that the Special DPC was held but the result could not be published due to operation of the standing Government Resolution, which is not under challenge by the Applicant. 5. Dr. Sathe has further argued that until such time a fair decision is taken in the matter by the learned Tribunal after 59-WP-12742-2026.DOC considering the reply of the Respondent(s), issuing a direction for personal appearance of the Additional Chief Secretary was totally uncalled for, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Under such circumstances, the learned Advocate General has prayed for an order from this Court suspending the operation of the order dated 17th September, 2026. 6. The prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners has been opposed by Mr. Dere, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, by submitting that his client is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30th September, 2026 and, therefore, having regard to the recourse adopted by the learned Tribunal, there is no justifiable ground for this Court to interfere in the matter. 7. We have considered the arguments made at the bar and have also gone through the material on record. 8. From a perusal of the order dated 17th September, 2026, we find that, it was basically an order issuing notice to the Respondent(s) in the Contempt Case. Upon receipt of notice, it would be open for the Respondent(s) to show cause and convinced 59-WP-12742-2026.DOC the learned Tribunal that there was no deliberate violation of the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, this is not a case of contempt. However, it is also noticed that certain observations had been recorded in the order, which observations, viewed from one angle, may cause prejudice to the interest of the Writ Petitioners in the pending Contempt Case. 9. We are conscious of the fact that the Respondent is due for retirement with effect from 30th September, 2026. Therefore, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case and by balancing equities, we dispose of this Writ Petition by providing that the observations made in the order dated 17th September, 2026, would be treated as prima facie in nature and the same shall not influence the learned Tribunal while proceeding further in the pending contempt proceeding. 10. The Respondents to file reply, if not already done. The learned Tribunal to pass a fresh order in the Contempt Case after taking note of the stand of the Respondent(s). 11. If either party remains aggrieved in the matter even thereafter, it would be open for them to approach this Court by filing fresh Writ Petition. 59-WP-12742-2026.DOC 12. The personal appearance of the Respondent No.1 (Additional Chief Secretary) shall stand dispensed with, until such time, the learned Tribunal passes a fresh order after considering the reply filed by the Respondent(s). 13. In view of the recourse adopted by this Court in this matter, it is clarified that all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the appropriate forum, as and when the occasion would arise. 14. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {