2013 (6) TMI 928 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court
2. Service of Dismissal Order as Part of Cause of Action

Summary:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The appellant challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground that the Kerala High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as no part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. The appellant was dismissed from service by the 1st respondent bank while working in Coimbatore, and the entire disciplinary proceedings took place outside Kerala. However, the appellant received the dismissal order at his address in Kottayam, Kerala, and argued that this constituted part of the cause of action u/s 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

2. Service of Dismissal Order as Part of Cause of Action:
The appellant relied on several judgments to support his contention that the service of the dismissal order at Kottayam constituted part of the cause of action, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Kerala High Court. Key judgments cited included:
- State of Punjab v. Amarsingh Harika (AIR 1966 SC 1113): The Supreme Court held that an order of dismissal is effective only when communicated to the concerned officer.
- Union of India v. P. Kunhabdulla (1985(1) SLJ 471): The Kerala High Court held that part of the cause of action arises where the dismissal order is served.
- Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India ((2004) 6 SCC 254): The Supreme Court clarified that service of notice must be an integral part of the cause of action.

The learned senior counsel for the respondent-bank relied on the Full Bench judgment in Naik Nakul Deo Singh v. The Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F., Kottayam (1999(3) KLT 629(F.B.)), which held that the place of service of the dismissal order does not constitute a cause of action.

Judgment:
The Kerala High Court, after considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the service of the dismissal order forms an integral part of the cause of action. The court held that since the order was served within its jurisdiction, it had the authority to entertain the Writ Petition. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the case was remanded for disposal on merits. The Writ Appeal was allowed.