THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENTversusSHAILENDRA RAGHUNATH NAGARKAR

                                                                           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

REKHA                 subsequent order dated 17th September, 2026, passed by the
PRAKASH
PATIL
Digitally signed by
REKHA PRAKASH
PATIL
Date: 2026.09.28
18:36:51 +0530


                                                      Page 1 of 6
                                                 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 24 th 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 17 th 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




                             Page 2 of 6
                                                   59-WP-12742-2026.DOC




in seal cover, yet, due to filing of a charge-sheet against him on 8 th

September, 2026, no decision was taken on his promotion. By

relying upon the Government Resolution dated 15 th 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 17 th 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




                               Page 3 of 6
                                                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 30 th

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 17 th 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




                               Page 4 of 6
                                                 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 30 th 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 17 th

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.




                              Page 5 of 6
                                                     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.)
                                                                        {




                              Page 6 of 6