Competent Authorities Must Consider Employee Explanations Before Taking Action Pursuant to Show Cause Notices

The petitioner, a Medical Lab Technologist at District Hospital Jashpur, challenged three show-cause notices/communications dated 24.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 5 (Assistant Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent).

These notices sought documents and explanations regarding an alleged incident on 06.03.2026 at the hospital’s Blood Centre.

The petitioner contended the notices were premeditated and issued without jurisdiction by an incompetent authority.

The State argued that the notices were merely requests for explanation, that the petitioner had already replied on 27.04.2026, and no formal departmental inquiry had been initiated.

1. Whether the show-cause notices issued by the Assistant Civil Surgeon were without jurisdiction and warrant judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the competent authority is required to consider the petitioner's submitted explanation before taking further disciplinary action.

The court applied the principles of Administrative Law and Natural Justice regarding the issuance of show-cause notices. It recognized the inherent authority of administrative heads to seek explanations from subordinates regarding workplace incidents.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that before an adverse administrative or disciplinary action is taken, the authority must consider the representation or explanation submitted by the aggrieved party to ensure due process.

The Court observed that the impugned communications were essentially preliminary inquiries seeking documentation and clarification rather than final disciplinary orders.

While the petitioner alleged a lack of jurisdiction and bad faith (premeditation), the Court noted that the petitioner had already participated in the process by submitting a formal explanation to the Civil Surgeon on 27.04.2026.

Since the petitioner’s defense—that he was not responsible for the alleged incident—was already on record before the authorities, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy was to ensure that this defense is meaningfully considered by the State before any punitive measures are adopted.

The petition was disposed of with these directions, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard is respected prior to any potential departmental action.