Mukesh Sikarwar vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 16802 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                             ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 28484 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           MUKESH SIKARWAR S/O DHARM SINGH, AGE- 31
                           YE A R S , OCCUPATION: CONSTABLE, R/O VILLAGE
                           NIZAMPUR P.O MAGRONI, DISTT-SHIVPURI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI SOUMYA PAWAIYA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                                 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
                                 MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI -
                                 110001

                           2.    THE DIRECTOR GENERAL , BSF HQR DG BSF,
                                 BLOCK NO. 10 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW
                                 DELHI-110001

                           3.    THE   DY.   INSPECTOR      GENERAL, BORDER
                                 SECURITY FORCE, DIST. EAST KHASI HILLS,
                                 MAWPAT, SHILLONG - 793012 (MEGHALAYA)

                           4.    THE COMMANDANT 56 BN. DOBASIPARA, TURA
                                 (MEGHALAYA)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI PRAVEEN NEWASKAR - ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                            ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.9136/2022, an application for taking additional facts on record and I.A. No.9137/2022, an application amendment in the writ Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-12-2022 06:03:02 PM

petition For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. Let necessary amendment be carried out within three working days. The counsel for the petitioner is also directed to file amended writ petition after supplying copy of the same to the office of Additional Advocate General.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

I. Impugned order dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) be set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner.

II. The respondent be directed to provide petitioner all consequential benefits including back wages and all other dues.

III. The respondent may be directed to decide the appeal/ petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. IV. Any other relief which the court may deem fit.

According to the case of the respondents, on 01.03.2021 at about 2100 hours, the petitioner was found absented without leave from BSF Campus, Dobasipara, Tura, Meghalaya. FIR was lodged in Police Station Dobasipara on 02.03.2021 and all BSF establishments were informed regarding AWL of the petitioner. Three registered letters were sent to the petitioner at his home address directing him to join duty immediately. But the petitioner, neither reported back nor responded to any correspondence made by the Unit. Accordingly, the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from services for his unauthorized absence. The said letter was issued 05.05.2021 but the petitioner did not respond and he remained on unauthorized absence. A special representative, i.e. Constable Jagdish Pal of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-12-2022 06:03:02 PM

Unit of Meghalaya was sent to the residence of the petitioner but all those efforts went in vain. Accordingly, the Competent Authority was satisfied that the petitioner is illegally absenting without leave without any valid reason since 01.03.2021 and on 09/06/2021, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 09/06/2021. The order was passed by Commandant, 55 Bn BSF, Dobasipara, Meghalaya. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Director General, New Delhi. It is submitted that the appeal has not been decided so far, therefore he has filed this petition for early disposal of the appeal apart from the other reliefs.

Per contra, a preliminary objection is raised by the counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner was posted at Meghalaya and order of termination was issued by Commandant, 55 Bn, BSF, Meghalaya. The appeal is pending before Director General, New Delhi. None of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Tomar Vs. Bharat Sarkar and others decided on 15/09/2022 in Writ Petition (Service) No.2550 of 2004.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that since the order of termination was served at Shivpuri, therefore this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this

writ petition because a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

This court in the case of Rajendra Singh Tomar (supra) has held:-

"10- Thus, merely because the order of appellate authority was served at the address of petitioner would not mean that any part of cause of action has arisen within the Signature Not Verified territorial jurisdiction of this Bench."

Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-12-2022 06:03:02 PM

Even if it is presumed that a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, still a major part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Meghalaya. The appeal is pending before Director General who stationed at New Delhi. Neither New Delhi is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court nor 55 Bn BSF Meghalaya is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the major part of cause of action has arisen either at Meghalaya or at New Delhi, therefore no case is made out for issuing any direction to the respondents.

With liberty to approach the appropriate forum, the petition is dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shubhankar

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-12-2022 06:03:02 PM