9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dismissal. It is challenging the proceedings of the dismissal that the Writ Petition is filed. The impugned orders are Ext. P1, the suspension order, Ext. P13, the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the appellant from service, Ext. P16, order of the appellate authority and Ext. P20, the order in review. 2. The first respondent bank raised a preliminary objection inter alia contending that all disciplinary proceedings in relation to the appellant were taken outside the jurisdiction of this Court and no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the State of Kerala. 3. According to the appellant, though he was employed at Coimbatore when the alleged incident occurred resulting in the memo of charges and the enquiry was held at Coimbatore, in view of the fact that the petitioner received the order of dismissal from service Ext. P13, at his last known address at Kottayam in the State of Kerala, part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance was placed on Art. 226(2) of the Constitution of India which inter alia indicates that if whole or part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8th May, 1951 and held as under: An order of dismissal passed by the appropriate authority and kept with itself, cannot be said to take effect unless the officer concerned knows about the said order and it is otherwise communicated to all the parties concerned. (ii) Union of India and others v. P. Kunhabdulla (1985(1) SLJ 471) is a Division Bench judgment of this Court. In this case a person who was working as Asst. Station Manager at Anbur, Madras was dismissed from service after conducting an enquiry. The order of dismissal was served on the said employee at Badakara in the State of Kerala. The question was whether High Court of Kerala had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. The Division Bench after having considered the matter in detail held that part of cause of action to challenge the order of removal from service arises in the State where the order becomes effective by service on the employee. Therefore, when the impugned order is made by an authority in one State, but it becomes effective on service in another State, the High Court in the latter State shall also have jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arises within that State. (iii) Uma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts is also known as integral facts. 14. In State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties this Court opined that mere service of a notice would not give rise to any cause of action unless service of notice was an integral part of the cause of action. The said decision has also been noticed in Oil and Natural Gas Commission. This Court held: (SCC p. 223, para 8) The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Art. 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to a cause of action. 18. The facts pleaded in the Writ Petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank strenuously relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Naik Nakul Deo Singh (supra) especially paragraphs 20 to 22 which reads as under: 20. It appears to us that the decisions in M/s. Swaika Properties case and the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appeal by the appellate authority. Communication of that order though the order become effective only on such communication to the aggrieved person only furnishes the aggrieved person with a right of action. Receipt of the communication is not a fact in the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action. Even though only on receipt of the order the aggrieved person may be able to challenge that order, receipt of the order cannot be said to be a fact forming the cause of action. For, the cause of action arises on the appeal being dismissed by the authority outside the jurisdiction of the court. The fact that until an order is published or made known, the order does not became effective since it will be open to the authority to change his mind before releasing the order, is not a ground to hold that the communication of the order also forms part of the cause of action to the aggrieved person. The fact that a person who was dismissed from service while he was in service outside the State would have to suffer the consequence of that dismissal when he is in his native place by being rendered jobless, is not a fact which constitutes the bundle of facts giving rise to a cause of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this High Court. The objection raised in that behalf by the respondents is well founded. 8. According to the learned senior counsel for the respondent this judgment had been relied upon by the Supreme Court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., (2006(2) KLT 525 (SC) : 2006) 3 SCC 658), to contend that the Full Bench judgment in Nakul Deo Singh (supra) is approved by the Supreme Court. But it is relevant to note that the Supreme Court was considering the question regarding what constitutes cause of action in the light of S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and was not concerned with a similar factual situation. The Supreme Court was not considering the correctness or otherwise of the Full Bench judgment. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Kunhabdulla's case (supra) was impliedly overruled by the Full Bench, after taking into consideration the conflict between Kunhabdulla's case and another Division Bench judgment in Thomaskutty v. Union of India (1994(2) KLT 258). According to the learned counsel, judgment in Thomaskutty's case (supra) was approved by the Full Bench thereby impliedly overruli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved on him at the same place, the Court at that place alone will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said case. In that case the contention raised for maintaining the Writ Petition was that a notice regarding rejection of the appeal was served on the petitioner while he was in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram and therefore he was entitled to file a Writ Petition in the State of Kerala. It was also contended that the Chief of Army staff, who had dismissed the appeal also had jurisdiction over Kerala. The Division Bench held that merely because intimation of the rejection of the appeal was forwarded to the petitioner, who was serving the sentence in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In the Full Bench judgment in Naik Nakul Deo Singh's case (supra), a batch of Original Petitions were referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge on expressing a view that there are apparent conflicts in the views expressed in the decisions in Kunhabdulla's case and Thomaskutty's case and hence the said conflict requires to be resolved. 11. Among the cases considered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation would also be part of the cause of action enabling the party to approach the High Court within the jurisdiction of which he was residing or working at the relevant time. The other view is founded on the fact that the mere service of the order is not a fact which is part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action and the cause of action arises when the appeal is dismissed by the appellate authority from the seat of the appellate authority. This difference in view point requires to be considered now. 13. A reference is made by the Full Bench in W.W. Joshi v. State of Bombay (AIR 1959 Bom. 363) and Damamal v. Union of India (AIR 1967 Bom. 355) and having taken note of the factual circumstances in the said case that the original order of dismissal was served on the employees concerned at a particular place, the Full Bench further observed that, It may have to be noted here straightaway that this particular limb is missing in the present cases since both the petitioners have already suffered the consequence of the decision outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court though one of them came to this State as a consequence of the orders made against him and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that a person who was dismissed from service while he was in service outside the State would have to suffer the consequence of that dismissal when he is in his native place by being rendered jobless, is not a fact which constitutes the bundle of facts giving rise to a cause of action in his favour to challenge his dismissal. That right accrued to him earlier when he was dismissed from service outside the State and he lost his employment . When a person is dismissed or reduced in rank, he suffers the consequences where he was employed at the relevant time and not in his native place to which he might have retired on his dismissal. This expression of view by the Full Bench without overruling the judgment in Kunhabdulla's case (supra) gives an indication that the Full Bench was considering the impact of service of notice in the appeal and not the factual circumstances relating to service of the original order of dismissal. In fact the observation That right accrued to him earlier when he was dismissed from service outside the State and he lost his employment indicates approval of Kunhabdulla's case (supra) whereas the observation When a person is dismissed or reduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Service of an order of dismissal is not a mere service of a notice, it definitely gives rise to a cause of action and such service of notice forms an integral part of the cause of action. If it is to be held that it does not form an integral part of cause of action, the factum of service of such order of dismissal does not require to be proved for giving effect to the order of dismissal. 19. In the result, we are of the view that service of an order of dismissal forms an integral part of the cause of action and since the order is served within the jurisdiction of this court this court has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition and hence this appeal is only to be allowed. But in so far the learned Single Judge had not considered the matter on merits, the contentions urged by the petitioner on merit requires to be heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We find that the Writ Petition is maintainable as part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The files shall be placed before the learned Single Judge for disposing the Writ Petition on merits. The Writ A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
