Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 64 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI JAGMOHAN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR
CHAURASI POST RAMPUR GANDHIGRAM POLICE
STATION CITY KOTWALI SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE BLOCK
NO. 1 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL
RESERVE POLICE FORCE PATNA-14 DISTRICT
PATNA (BIHAR)
3. COMMANDANT, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE
FO R C E 116, BATTALION, DIBRUGARH ASSAM
DISTRICT DIBRUGARH (ASSAM)
4. CENTRAL PENSION AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE,
GOVT. OF INDIA TRIKOOT-2 BHIKAJI, CAMA
PALACE NEW DELHI (DELHI)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/22/2024
4:56:19 PM
2
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing Writ Petition No.5894 of 2023, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 25.05.2000 passed
by the respondents whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from
service with retrospective date. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially
appointed on the post of Constable on 13.06.1985 and was posted at Neemuch.
He was promoted as Lance Nayak in the year 1995-96. His services were
terminated vide order dated 07.12.1999 on the ground that the petitioner has
misbehaved with the co-employees as well as his seniors. The departmental
enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. He was not even
supplied the copy of the charge sheet nor any reply could be submitted by the
petitioner. The enquiry officer obtained some signatures in the blank papers and
thereafter proceeded in the matter. The procedure for conduction of the
departmental enquiry was not followed and the respondent No.3 imposed a
major punishment of termination upon the petitioner. The said order was never
communicated to the petitioner but he somehow got the information and filed an
appeal before the appellate authority which was partly allowed on 27.12.1999
and instead of imposing major penalty of termination, the punishment was
modified and was converted into that of compulsory retirement from the date of
termination i.e. 07.12.1999.
3. It is argued that the impugned order has been passed without examining the
entire service record of the petitioner. In the cases of compulsory retirement as
per the settled provisions of law, the entire service record has to be examined.
The same has not been done in the present case, therefore, the petition was
filed. The learned Writ Court failed to consider the settled proposition of law
and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is
argued that the order was communicated to the petitioner while he was staying
at Satna, therefore, the part cause of action has arisen at Satna. Therefore, the
writ petition was maintainable before this Court. The learned Writ Court while
dismissing the writ petition for want of jurisdiction has made certain comments
on the conduct of the counsel and referred the matter to the State Bar Council
but on review being filed the observations with respect to referring the case to
the State Bar Council were deleted, but maintained the decision that since the
order of compulsory retirement was passed on 25.05.2000 by the authorities at
Patna (Bihar), therefore, the challenge to the aforesaid order could be made only
within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna. Therefore, the petitioner is challenging
the same before this Court only on the ground that since the order was
communicated to the petitioner while he was staying at Satna, the petition ought
to have been heard on merits.It is further contended that the law with respect to
cause of action and jurisdiction is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large
number of cases. The judgment on forum convenience is also required to be
considered in the matter.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The question involved herein has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of The State of Goa Vs. Sumit Online Trade Solutions
(P) Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal No.1700 of 2023) reported in (2023) 7 SCC 791
wherein it is held as under :-
"13. From the above, it is clear that according to the petitioning
company the cause of action has arisen in Sikkim only, meaning
thereby the whole of the cause of action and not part of it;
additionally, it is stated that all the respondents are located within
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court which is factually
incorrect.
16. The expression "cause of action" has not been defined in the
Constitution. However, the classic definition of "cause of action"
given by Lord Brett in Cooke v. Gill [Cooke v. Gill, (1873) LR 8 CP
107] that "cause of action means every fact which it would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support
his right to the judgment of the court", has been accepted by this
Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause,
there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ
petition, what would constitute such "cause of action" is the
material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead
and prove to obtain relief as claimed.
21. Even otherwise, the High Court was not justified in dismissing
the interim applications. Assuming that a slender part of the cause
of action did arise within the State of Sikkim, the concept of forum
convenience ought to have been considered by the High Court. As
held by this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India
[Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254]
and Ambica Industries v. CCE [Ambica Industries v. CCE, (2007) 6
SCC 769] , even if a small part of the cause of action arises within
the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the same by itself could
not have been a determinative factor compelling the High Court to
keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant to decide the
matter qua the impugned notification, on merit."
6. Considering the law laid down in the aforesaid case as well as by this
Court in catena of judgments, coupled with the fact that the impugned order
was passed from Patna, State of Bihar, this Court is having no jurisdiction to
entertain the petition. Therefore, no error is found to have been committed by
the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of
territorial jurisdiction.
7. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
