Allahabad High Court
Babu Ram Singh vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. ... on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53303
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5849 of 2023
Petitioner :- Babu Ram Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Anshul Baranwal,Sant Prasad Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed challenging order dated 23rd June, 2022 passed by opposite party no.3 whereby petitioner's departmental appeal against order of compulsory retirement has been rejected. Also under challenge is order dated 31st October, 2022 passed by opposite party no.2 whereby departmental revision preferred against the appellate order has been rejected.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition before this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction since orders impugned have been been passed by authorities stationed in Chandigarh. It is submitted that not even part cause of action accrues to petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Lucknow.
4. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that initially criminal proceedings were initiated against petitioner in pursuance of an F.I.R. lodged against petitioner while he was posted in Faizabad whereafter he was in judicial custody in District Jail, Basti. It is submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings, petitioner was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 21st March, 2004 which was challenged in Writ Petition No.32673 of 2004 but the same was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 25th August, 2004. It is submitted that aforesaid order became final since no challenge thereto was effected but after being acquitted in all the three criminal cases petitioner preferred departmental appeal before opposite party no.3, particularly on account of fact that acquittal order was challenged by the State, which was rejected and attained finality.
5. It is submitted that although impugned orders have been passed by authorities stationed at Chandigarh but part cause of action accrues to petitioner within territorial jurisdiction of this Court since proceedings arise out of criminal cases while he was posted in Faizabad although the criminal proceedings pertained to both Basti and Faizabad.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that initial order of compulsory retirement dated 04th March, 2004 was challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition before this Court at Allahabad which was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 25th August, 2004. It is admitted that the aforesaid judgment and order attained finality since it was not challenged by petitioner. It is also evident that subsequently after acquittal of petitioner in all the three criminal cases, departmental appeal was preferred by petitioner before opposite party no.3 which has been rejected, with revision has also been rejected by opposite party no.2. It is quite evident that impugned orders in this petition have been passed by authorities which are stationed at Chandigarh. The aspect of part cause of action arising to petitioner has been submitted on basis of fact that initial proceedings which result in culmination of impugned orders were within territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore the petition would be liable to be entertained.
7. It is quite evident that the initial cause of action to petitioner against order of compulsory retirement was availed of by petitioner in earlier Writ Petition No. 32673 of 2004 which attained finality by its dismissal. It is also evident that departmental appeal was preferred by petitioner after acquittal in all three criminal cases to an authority which is beyond territorial jurisdiction of this Court resulting in passing of impugned orders.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the subsequent departmental appeal and revision having been preferred as a separate cause of action from the order of compulsory retirement after acquittal does not provide any part cause of action to the petitioner for which the petition would be entertainable at Lucknow. Even as per submission of learned counsel for petitioner, part cause of action had accrued in District Basti and Faizabad whereafter impugned orders have been passed at Chandigarh.
9. The impugned orders being a separate cause of action to petitioner, the petition is not entertainable at Lucknow and is therefore, dismissed on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
Arnima
