Sunil Sawant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29513
1 WP-41212-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALPESH Y. KOGJE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
th
ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 41212 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020396652026
SUNIL SAWANT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Bais - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Sethi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje, Chief Justice
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the lenient
punishment orders dated 12.12.2025.
(b) Direct Respondent No.1 and 2 to reconsider the
departmental action to impose major penalties including
dismissal or full/ partial recovery of the embezzled
amount.
(c) Direct the Lokayukta/Police to register an FIR
under the relevant provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against all
five accused officials.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest
of justice."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 23-10-2026
14:34:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29513
2 WP-41212-2026
2. Essentially, the prayer is for seeking action against the respondents

which otherwise provided for in departmental appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
being a citizen of India and having retired as an agent of LIC Housing
Finance has raised grievance with regard to irregularities in pothole repair
works and purchase of material for such road construction. According to the
petitioner, the purchase of road constructer material was made in violation of
various statutory financial regulations and the payment is also made without
following the process and ascertaining the work done.
4. The Court may observe that previously also, the petitioner had filed
a writ petition bearing W.P.No.22749/2026, which the petitioner withdrew
with liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under the law. The same
was under order dated 13.07.2026. The petitioner has considered the filing of
the present petition to be appropriate remedy available under the law.
However, the prayer clause pertains to the employment of the respondents,
which are governed by respective Discipline and Appeal Rules and/or
Conduct Rules. It appears that the tenor of the petitioner is as if the Court is
to undertake the exercise of the procedure which otherwise is contemplated
by way of the departmental procedure.
5. The Court may refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case
of Girjesh Shrivastava and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others,
(2010) 10 SCC 707, wherein the Apex Court relying upon the judgments
i n Durgodhan Sahu (Dr.) Vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273,
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349 and Hari Bansh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 23-10-2026
14:34:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29513
3 WP-41212-2026
Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto (2010) 9 SCC 655, has observed that a PIL in

a matter which has the effect on service conditions of respondents may not be
entertained. The relevant paras are as under:-
"14. However, the main argument by the appellants against
entertaining WP (C) No. 1520 of 2001 and WP (C) No. 63 of 2002 is
on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This
Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that
contention. It is common ground that dispute in this case is over
selection and appointment which is a service matter.

15. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC
273, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that a PIL is not
maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through
Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created
under Article 323-A in the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the
High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This Court held: (SCC p. 281,
para 18)
“18. … If public interest litigations at the instance of
strangers are allowed to be entertained by the
Administrative Tribunal, the very object of speedy
disposal of service matters would get defeated.”
Same reasoning applies here as a public interest litigation has been
filed when the entire dispute relates to selection and appointment.

16. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply &
Drainage Board Employees' Assn. [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : (2007) 1
SCC (L&S) 548 (2)] this Court held that in service matters only the
non-appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure.

17. This view was very strongly expressed by this Court in Dattaraj
Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590] by
pointing out that despite the decision in Duryodhan Sahu [(1998) 7
SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802], PILs in service matters “continue
unabated”. This Court opined that the High Courts should “throw out”
such petitions in view of the decision in Duryodhan Sahu [(1998) 7
SCC 273.

18. Same principles have been reiterated in Ashok Kumar Pandey v.
State of W.B. [(2004) 3 SCC 349].

19. In a recent decision of this Court delivered on 30-8-2010, in Hari
Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto [(2010) 9 SCC 655], it has been
held that except in a case for a writ of “quo warranto”, PIL in a service
matter is not maintainable."
6. In view of aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to accept the petition
leaving it upon the petitioner to agitate the cause before an appropriate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 23-10-2026
14:34:20

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29513
4 WP-41212-2026
authority.

7. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(ALPESH Y. KOGJE)
(VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
C

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 23-10-2026
14:34:20