A.F.R.
Court No. - 62
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30464 of 2001 Petitioner :- Ram Manohar Respondent :- Union Of India & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P.Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :-
S.N.Srivastava/Ssc,N.K.Chatterjee,Purushottam Maurya,S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned Additional Standing Counsel representing the Union of India-respondents.
Perused the record.
By this under Art. 226 of the Constitution, petitioner- a constable in Central Industrial Security Force, seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 18.6.1999, 911.2000 and 16.5.2001 passed by Commandant, CISF Unit Balco, Korba, Madhya Pradesh, Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Zone, Patna (Bihar) and Inspector General, CISF Eastern Zone, Patna (Bihar), whereby minor punishment was imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide first order, his appeal was dismissed by enhancing the punishment terminating his services by the appellate authority vide second order and revision was dismissed by the revisional authority vide third and the last order respectively.
Relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India, (2005(1) UPLBEC-108) as well as decision of the Apex Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 329, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for respondents regarding maintainability of this petition before this Court. According to the learned counsel, this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submits that since at the time of filing of appeal, the petitioner was transferred to Ghaziabad, therefore, present petition would be maintainable before this Court.
Perusal of the record shows that all the aforesaid three orders were passed by the authorities located at Korba within the State of Madhya Pradesh and Patna within the State of Bihar i.e. outside the State of U.P.. Since the misconduct alleged against him was also committed at Korba, Madhya Pradesh, therefore, entire cause of action has arisen outside the State of U.P. in the facts and circumstances of the present case and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner that at the time of filing the appeal, he was posted at Ghziabad, is of no help to the petitioner, for the reason that territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Court does not depend upon the residence or location of the person but depends only on the person or authority, against whom a writ is being sought.
Applying the aforesaid principles, the preliminary objection so raised, is sustained.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the orders impugned before the appropriate Court.
Office is directed to return certified copy of the orders impugned to the learned counsel for petitioner within two weeks.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 SNT/