SC Sets Aside HC Notice to Enhance Removal to Dismissal

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Show-Cause Notice to Enhance Removal to Dismissal

Parsaram Khichi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Decided 2 November 2026

Published: 6 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Parsaram Khichi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court Division Bench order that, in the employee's own special appeal, called on him to show cause why his removal from service should not be enhanced to dismissal. The Court held a direction issuing such a notice for enhancement of punishment at the instance of the Division Bench legally untenable (paras 5-6). The special appeal is to be heard on its own merits (para 6).

Key holdings

A Division Bench notice asking an appellant-employee to show cause why removal from service should not be enhanced to dismissal was held legally untenable (para 6).

The Court noted that the removal order had attained finality at the employer's instance and that the petitioner alone was aggrieved (para 5).

The impugned order was set aside; the special appeal is to be heard on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation in it (para 6).

The petitioner may pray for an expeditious hearing before the High Court (para 8).

The connected SLP (C) No. 34501/2026, against an adjournment order, needed no separate orders (para 9).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 28.05.2025, an order of removal from service was passed, and his review petition was rejected by the employer on 25.08.2025 (para 2). The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his writ petition on 15.09.2025, and he filed an intra-court special appeal, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1421/2025 (paras 3, 6). The Division Bench felt that ‘even removal from service is a lighter punishment’ and gave him notice to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced to dismissal from service (paras 3-4). The cause title dates the impugned order 26.02.2026. A connected petition, SLP (C) No. 34501/2026, concerned an order of adjournment (para 9).

Court's Findings

The Court was of the opinion that such an order ‘could not have been passed’ by the Division Bench (para 5). The employer had passed the order of removal, ‘which had attained finality at the instance of the employer’; the petitioner alone was aggrieved by it and, having failed before the Single Judge, had approached the Division Bench in appeal (para 5). The direction issuing show cause notice for enhancement of punishment at the instance of the Division Bench was ‘legally untenable’, so the impugned order was set aside, and D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1421/2025 is to be heard on its own merits, without reference to the impugned order and uninfluenced by any observations made in it (para 6). The order records no view on the order of removal or on the merits of the special appeal. On the request for an expeditious hearing, the Court observed that it would be open to the petitioner to make that prayer before the High Court (para 8). No separate orders were called for in the connected SLP (C) No. 34501/2026 (para 9).

Legal Principle

Where an employer's order of removal has attained finality at the employer's instance and only the employee is aggrieved, a direction by the Division Bench, in the employee's intra-court special appeal, issuing show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment is legally untenable (paras 5-6). The order cites no decision.

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This order is a reminder that an employee's appeal against a punishment is not a vehicle for raising the penalty on the court's own motion: here the Court treated the removal order as final at the employer's instance and set aside the Division Bench's notice proposing dismissal (paras 5-6). The special appeal goes back to be heard on its merits, with a free hand to ask for an early date (paras 6, 8). A reader should note what the order does not decide: it does not examine the removal or the merits of the appeal, and it states no wider rule than the facts recorded.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.