2022 (4) TMI 1595 - HC - Indian Laws

Invocation of territorial jurisdiction of this Court - Disqualification for future employment - petitioner who was working on the post of assistant Sub-Inspector, CISF was dismissed from service - Seeking reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefit including back wages - partial cause of action - HELD THAT - MeIn view of merely the fact that petitioner is a resident of State of Bihar and certain correspondences have been made by him and that does not accrues any partial cause of action to the petitioner in the State of Bihar so as to entertain writ petition. If this analogy is accepted every aggrieved person sitting at his/her home town invoke territorial jurisdiction of the respective State High Court, even though contesting respondent's office or residence is in a different place-territorial jurisdiction. For example employee of the respondents if he is resident of Tamil Nadu and make correspondence from Tamil Nadu and he cannot invoke jurisdiction of Madras High Court as employer and employee relation would be only at Assam/West Bengal. If the employer is Union of India one can understand. If the other than Union of India, in that event, invoking Article 226(2) of Constitution is not feasible and appropriate. It is to be noted that 1st respondent is not necessary and proper party, he has been unnecessarily impleaded, since no order of 1st respondent is under challenge -- Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected on the score that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in respect of quashing the action of the respondents-Assam/State of West Bengal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in terms of territorial jurisdiction.
2. Validity of the dismissal order, appellate authority order, and revisional authority order.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition in Terms of Territorial Jurisdiction:

The preliminary issue addressed was whether the High Court of Patna has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner, a resident of Bihar, challenged the dismissal order and subsequent affirmations by authorities stationed in Assam and Kolkata. The court examined whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within Bihar's jurisdiction.

The petitioner argued that being a resident of Bihar and receiving the dismissal and appellate orders in Bihar constituted a partial cause of action within the state. The petitioner cited several cases, including *Major Ganesh Prasad Sinha vs. The Union of India* and *Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India*, to support this contention.

However, the court emphasized that the cause of action must be integral and substantial. It cited several precedents, including *Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu* and *State of Rajasthan vs. Swaika Properties*, which clarified that mere receipt of orders or communications does not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. The court concluded that the entire cause of action arose in Assam and West Bengal, where the disciplinary proceedings and orders were executed.

The court also referred to Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which allows a High Court to issue writs if the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. It was noted that this provision does not extend to cases where the primary actions and decisions occurred outside the jurisdiction, merely based on the petitioner's residence.

2. Validity of the Dismissal Order, Appellate Authority Order, and Revisional Authority Order:

Since the court determined that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, it did not delve into the merits of the dismissal order, appellate authority order, and revisional authority order. The petitioner's challenge to these orders, based on the disciplinary proceedings conducted in Assam and affirmed in Kolkata, was not addressed substantively due to the jurisdictional limitation.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was rejected on the grounds that the High Court of Patna did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The court held that the cause of action, both wholly and in part, arose in Assam and West Bengal, and the petitioner’s residence in Bihar did not constitute a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner's plea for reinstatement and back wages was not considered.