HAKIM SIMGH JATAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) In this petition under article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by show-cause notice dtd. 09/11/2017 issued by the respondents whereby, petitioner has been asked to explain as to why the disciplinary proceedings be not initiated and services be not terminated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the cause of action, the show-cause notice issued against the petitioner has already been replied on 13/11//2017 which is part of P/7 at page No. 32 but respondents again issued show-cause notice which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is regular employee and in case, it was found that he is involved in the misconduct then regular disciplinary inquiry be conducted under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1966 but the same has not been done.