(1) 13.wp.6191.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6191 OF 2026 Ravindra S/o Shaligramji Bhuyar Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Additional Chief Secretary, (Transport), Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Arjun A. Sambre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. V. Narale, AGP for State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 14/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Arjun Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking challenge to the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2026 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Original Application No.259/2025. The petitioner had approached the learned Tribunal to challenge the show cause notice dated 06.03.2024, whereby the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why the departmental action shall not be initiated against him and accordingly, a proposal should not be submitted to the Government of Maharashtra. The aforesaid impugned notice is on record at page 38 Annexure No.3. The aforesaid impugned notice clearly calls upon the petitioner to give his explanation as to why such proposal should not be forwarded to the Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner being aggrieved by 2026:BHC-NAG:10630-DB (2) 13.wp.6191.2026 such notice, approached the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, in para 18 of the judgment observed as under: “18. We are in loss to understand as to how a mere show cause notice can be a subject matter of challenge. Inasmuch as the notice was based on some report indicating substance in the allegations which were made viral. The applicant would certainly get an opportunity to explain the things or put up his stand. However, no one can approach the Court with the urge that no departmental action shall be initiated against him. Injunction cannot be granted to prevent the process of law. Always it is matter of fact to be decided upon facts and circumstances of each case whether the material is worth for initiation of inquiry. In a bid to form an opinion, whether inquiry is essential, the department simply called explanation by issuance of a show cause notice, which cannot be faulted with.” 3. So far as the view adopted by the learned Tribunal is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that there is no perversity in such view adopted by the learned Tribunal, as ultimately it is a show cause notice, which is the subject matter of challenge. The show cause notice is in favour of the petitioner for calling upon explanation before initiating any action and following the principles of natural justice and granting an opportunity to put up his case. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the learned Tribunal and we dispose of the present writ petition in following terms: (i) The petitioner shall submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice dated 06.03.2024, which is on record at (3) 13.wp.6191.2026 page No.38 Annexure No.3, within a period of three weeks from today. (ii) If the Authority after considering the submission made by the petitioner and considering the grounds as raised in the original application and the present writ petition comes to a conclusion that the departmental action needs to be initiated against him and accordingly a proposal needs to be submitted to the Government of Maharashtra, the aforesaid order holding such shall be kept in abeyance for a further period of four weeks in order to enable the petitioner to avail the remedies challenging such decision. 4. Needless to mention here that we have not dealt with the merits of the matter and all the grounds of challenge as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition are kept open. 5. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate