Dinesh Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Petition has been filed challenging show-cause notice dated 16th September 2025 whereby recovery of Rs. 2,06,250/- has been proposed from salary of petitioner along with punishment of censure.

¶13

It has been submitted that the aforesaid show-cause notice has been issued only on the basis of a preliminary inquiry without conducting a proper departmental inquiry as provided under the rules. It is submitted that even the procedure required to be followed with regard to natural justice has also been deviated from by the opposite parties. It is, therefore, submitted that there is certainty that petitioner is being made a scapegoat for misdeeds of others and the show-cause notice will certainly be followed by punishment order. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Limited and others versus Girish Chandra Sarma, (2007) 7 SCC 206.

¶14

Mr. Jagdeep Singh Yadav, learned state counsel, has been provided written instructions dated 16 October 2025, a copy of which is taken on record and has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that petition has been filed against showcause notice that a mere apprehension and would not be maintainable until and unless a final order has been passed against petitioner.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for

¶16

WRIA No. 12547 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted that the show-cause notice is under challenge without any ground being raised pertaining to lack of jurisdiction of the authority concerned. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, the petition has been filed only on apprehension and would be maintainable only in case a final order is passed or challenges raised to the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the notice.

¶19

So far as judgment rendered in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Limited (supra) is concerned, it is quite evident that petition has been filed against the punishment order of reversion passed against the respondent therein. It is therefore, quite evident that the proceedings were initiated before court after passing of final orders and in the light of the aforesaid, the said judgment is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

Considering aforesaid facts, the petition being premature therefore fails and is dismissed. Liberty however is granted to petitioner to furnish a reply to the show-cause notice. Appropriate orders, considering petitioner's reply shall be passed by the authorities concerned.

¶21

October 28, 2025 prabhat

¶22

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Labor Deptt.Govt.of Up Lko.andORS

Garbhoo Singh Yadav (P.N.O. 840500076) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Shobhawati Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugarcane Devolopment and Sugar Industry Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Najmul Iqbal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Inspector Vegpal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others