NAKUL DEO SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Petitions were referred to a Division Bench by the learned Single Judge in view of the apparent conflict in the views expressed in the decisions of this Court and in view of the importance of the question involved. The Division Bench in its turn felt that there was an apparent conflict between the views in the decisions of two Division Bench of this Court, one in Union of India v. Kunhabdulla ( 1985 (1) LLJ 331 ) and the other in Thomas Kutty v. Union of India ( 1994 (2) KLT 258 ) and that the conflict requires to be resolved. That is how these Original Petitions have come up before the Full Bench.

(2.) Brief facts in O.P. 11321 of 1995 are: The petitioner therein while working as a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Bokkaro Steel Plant was issued a charge memo and after the conduct of a due enquiry was imposed a punishment of reduction in rank to the lower post of Naik till he was found fit by the competent authority to be restored to the higher post of Head Constable. This order was admittedly served on the petitioner at Bokkaro. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Bokkaro Steel Plant, Bokkaro. That appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 4.3.1995. Copy of the order of the original authority imposing punishment on the petitioner is marked as Ext. P5 and the copy of the order of the Appellate Authority is marked as Ext. P1 in the Original Petition. The order Ext. P1 was served on the petitioner while he was working as a Naik in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at HNL Kottayam. On receipt of the appellate order Ext P1 the petitioner approached this Court with the Original Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the original order Ext. P5 and the appellate order Ext P1. In the Original Petition the petitioner has not put forward any specific plea regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Original Petition. In other words there is no plea in the Original Petition regarding the basis on which the Original Petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents a specific plea was raised that the cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and since no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Original Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution was not maintainable. Thus one of the questions that fell for decision in the Original Petition was whether this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution in the light of Art.226(2) of the Constitution.

(3.) The brief facts in O.P. 12019 of 1995 are: While the petitioner was working as a constable in the 125 Battalion of Central Reserve Police Force (Independent Group) under the Commandant 125 Battalion Central Reserve Police Force Antheria More, New Delhi action was initiated against the petitioner for his failing to report for duty on expiry of the sanctioned leave. After a due enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority. The order was received by the petitioner while in New Delhi. After receipt of the order, the petitioner returned to his native place at Trivandrum. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi. That appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was belated. The order of the appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner at Trivandrum. The petitioner has filed the Original Petition seeking to quash the order of the original authority dismissing him from service and that of the Appellate Authority (what is described as Ext. P4 order in the Original Petition, which is sought to be quashed is only a Memorandum of Appeal but the prayer apparently relates to Ext. P5 order by which the appeal was rejected). Here also, there is no specific plea in the Original Petition as to how the jurisdiction of this Court was attracted. Here also the question of jurisdiction was raised on behalf of the respondents.