Delhi High Court
Sukhraj Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 15 December, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:15th December, 2016
+ W.P. (C) 10605/2016 & CM No. 45443/2016 (for direction)
SUKHRAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava,
Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Ms. Eshita
Baruah and Mr. Y.P. Singh,
Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
ORDER
15.12.2016
INDIRA BANERJEE, J (ORAL)
1. The short question raised in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner
ought to have been imposed penalty of line confinement of 4 days for the
offence of drinking in summary proceedings, without breath analysis/test
and without being given an opportunity of hearing.
2. The petitioner is a Head Constable (General duty) of the central
Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.), presently posted at the 51 battalion of the
CRPF at Hallomajra, Chandigarh.
3. On 21.3.2016, the petitioner was directed to report at the Group
Centre, Jalandhar in Punjab for playing a volleyball tournament against the
North West Sector.
4. The petitioner reported at the Group Centre at about 8.30 pm on
21.3.2016. According to the petitioner, the petitioner spent the night at the
Group Centre, in a room, where, there were 7 to 8 other personnel.
5. The next day, i.e. on 22.3.2016, at about 11.30 pm, the Subedar Major
of Group Centre inspected the room, in which the petitioner had stayed
overnight and checked the almirahs. The petitioner claims that nothing
objectionable was found from the almirah, adjacent to the bed of the
petitioner. However, an empty liquor bottle was found in an almirah to the
left of the bed of the petitioner.
6. It is the case of the petitioner, that he did not have any clue about,
who kept the liquor bottle in the almirah. The petitioner claims that he had
never touched alcohol in his life. He was a strict teetotaler. The
respondents, however, alleged that the petitioner had consumed liquor from
the said bottle and directed the petitioner to report to the orderly room. The
petitioner duly reported at the orderly room on 22.3.2016 and denied having
consumed any liquor.
7. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities imposed on the
petitioner minor penalty of line confinement for four days without carrying
out any breath analysis or any medical examination of the petitioner as per
the petitioner's request.
8. The petitioner made a representation against the penalty, which,
according to the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner was confined
to the lines from 23.3.2016 to 26.3.2016 and entries in this regard were
made in the service book of the petitioner.
9. The entry in the service book would, according to the petitioner cause
immense prejudice to the petitioner as the entries would render the petitioner
ineligible for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for
promotion from the post of Head Constable to sub Inspector.
10. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought expunging of the entry
of the penalty of line confinement in his service book. In the alternative, the
petitioner has sought a declaration that Rule 28(b) (i) of the Central Reserve
Police Force Rules 1955 is ultra vires the Constitution of India. Rule 28(b)
(i) inter alia provides that no appeal shall lie against the minor penalty of
line confinement.
11. The penalty of line confinement for 4 days was imposed by the
Commandant of the 51 Battalion at Hallomajra, Punjab, outside the
jurisdiction of this court.
12. The respondents have taken a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the writ petition, contending that this Court lacks
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ jurisdiction, as no part of the
cause of action for the writ petition arose within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
13. It is, however, not in dispute that the headquarters of the Central
Reserve Police Force, are located at Lodhi Road, New Delhi, within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
14. Furthermore, the petitioner has made an alternative prayer for
declaration that Rule 28-B(1) of the Central Revenue Police Force Rules
1955, is unconstitutional.
15. Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides as follows:-
"226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court
shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions,
quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions,
orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may
also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power,
notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority
or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
16. The High Court has power to issue writ to any authority located
within the jurisdiction of the Court. Article 226 (2) provides that a writ
petition may be entertained by a High Court, if any part of the cause of
action arises within the jurisdiction of that High Court, even if, the
respondent is not located within the jurisdiction of the High Court. If the
authority is within jurisdiction, it is immaterial if the cause of action arises
within or outside the jurisdiction. In the instant case, as observed above, the
Headquarters of the CRPF are in Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court.
17. In any case, the petitioners have challenged Rule 28 (b) (i) C.R.P.F.
Rules, which are applicable in the National Capital Territory of Delhi as also
in other parts of the country. In our view, this Court has territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Whether this court is a convenient
forum or not is a separate issue.
18. In view of the finding that this court has territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents
to file their counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be
filed within two weeks thereafter.
19. The writ petition be listed for hearing on 28.02.2017.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J
DECEMBER 15, 2016
n
At this stage, Mr.Alakh Alok Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner
appears and requests for the pre-ponement of date of hearing.
List for directions on 20.12.2016.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J
DECEMBER 15, 2016/n
