9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed serious misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant, in that he had sent the letter Ext. P5 containing objectionable matters, criticising the top administration of the railways, without obtaining the sanction of the competent authority, contravening Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii) and 19(1) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Divisional Operating Superintendent, Madras, by the impugned older dated 26th August, 1982, removed the respondent from service. The respondent received a copy of the order by registered post on 11th September, 1982 while he was in Badagara, within the State of Kerala. The respondent filed the writ petition before this Court for quashing Ext. P 13 and consequential relief. 3. The appellants contended inter-alia that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition pointing out that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The authorities whose action is challenged are not functioning within the jurisdiction of the State of Kerala, the respondent is also not functioning within the State and no action was taken in this State. The ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntendent who passed the order challenged, is having his office at Madras and his powers do not extend to any territory within the State of Kerala. The respondent's employment was also outside the jurisdiction of this Court. But if the cause of action has arisen atleast in part in this territory, over which this Court has jurisdiction, then certainly the writ petition is maintainable. It is argued for the appellants that the real effect of the order of removal was on the respondent's employment which was exclusively outside the jurisdiction of the Court and therefore the whole cause of action for the petition has arisen out of the State. 7. In M.G. George v. Asst. Director, S.I. Bureau AIR 1977 Ker 4 Chandrasekhara Menon, J., following Veeri Chettiar v. S.T. Officer, Bombay AIR 1971 Mad 155 pointed out that the cause of action has always been understood as referable to the bundle of facts in a legal proceeding and if a limb of that bundle of facts is available, seen or discernible in one particular place which is within the jurisdiction of the High Court, then the High Court has the power to exercise all the powers conferred on it under Article 226A notwithstanding the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 10. In Veeri Chettiar's case (supra) the Court stated that the impact on the addressee caused by a notice of a taxing authority and his proposal to assess is cause of action in part. In all these cases the order impugned though passed outside the jurisdiction of the particular Court concerned, was served on the petitioner in these cases in a place within the jurisdiction of the Courts in which the writ petitions have been filed. The effect of the order by governmental authority fell on the petitioners at places where the Courts had jurisdiction. Thus the principle that the Court can exercise jurisdiction in respect of such matters as part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction over which they could exercise jurisdiction is clearly stated. Part of the cause of action to challenge the impugned order of removal from service arises in the State where the order becomes effective by service on the employee. Therefore where 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 therein. 11. Thus this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of Ext. P 13 wrote to the respondent as under: You have already been removed from service with effect from 27th August, 1982 vide this office Penalty Advice No. M/P. 227/1/194/30 dated 26th August, 1982 copy enclosed. Hence the question of sanctioning you leave on extension does not arise. Please note. (emphasis supplied) The Station Master has also issued similar advice to him. It admits of no doubt that any attempt on the part of the authorities to serve the order on the respondent at Madras could not have been effective as he was away from Madras and the endorsement on the postal acknowledgement dated 8th September, 1982 is not evidence of effective communication of the order. The impugned order communicated to the respondent has been actually received by him only on 11th September, 1982 while he was at his permanent residence at Badagara, in the State of Kerala. The order of removal thus became effective on service within territorial limits of this Court. We are therefore in agreement with the learned single Judge that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition filed is therefore maintainable. 14. The next gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... views with complete freedom and by resorting to any available means of publication, subject to such restriction as could be legitimately imposed under Clause (2) of Article 19. The clause authorises the State to impose restriction upon the freedom of speech only on certain specified grounds. The Conduct Rules extracted in the judgment stated that every railway servant shall at all time maintain absolute integrity, do nothing which is unbecoming of a government or a railway servant and no railway servant shall except with the previous sanction of the government have recourse to the press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of a defamatory character. The rule imposes restriction on the freedom of speech and expression of the railway servant as a citizen. The rule has not been challenged and therefore it is not necessary for us to consider whether the same is reasonable and justified under the limitation clause. 17. Ext.P5 letter was published by the respondent as Secretary of the Union, expressing the views and reactions of the railway servants on the causes of railway accidents. The intention appears to be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ext. P 1. This averment has been repudiated in the counter affidavit wherein these appellants have stated that the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madras in his order No. M/P/563/i/Pro. ASM dated 25th March, 1963 appointed the respondent as probationary Assistant Station Master. The appellants also contended that the Divisional Operating Superintendent who passed the order of removal is of the same rank as the Divisional Personnel Officer and therefore the order is perfectly valid. The copy of the order dated 25th March, 1963 has not been made available. If the respondent was in fact appointed as per Ext. P 1 order by the General Manager, it cannot be disputed that the impugned order is in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution and is therefore inoperative. However, in the view which we have formed, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the contention. We are also not considering the other arguments advanced by the respondent in support of the order on the basis of the other grounds taken up in the original petition. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances without costs. Immediately after the pronouncement of the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
