PRS PANIKAR Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) * * * *

(2.) The appellant herein was original petitioner in the Special Civil Application and we will therefore refer the appellant as petitioner for the sake of convenience in the later part of the judgment. The petitioner was at one time officer in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission respondent No. 1 herein. He was removed from service on 14th October 1982 and the said removal which is at Annexure I was brought in challenge in the Special Civil Application. Three contentions were canvassed before the learned single Judge for challenging the said order. The first contention was that the finding of the Enquiry Officer and as confirmed by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner had misappropriated 15 tubings of 2 diameter on 23/02/1978 having removed them through false gate pass No. 56034 is based on no evidence and therefore the termination is liable to be quashed. The second contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the charge of misappropriation was a mala fide one. she last contention was that in any case the punishment imposed was far too out of proportion. All these three contentions were examined by the learned single Judge after issuing notice to the respondents and after hearing both the sides. The learned single Judge N. H. Bhatt J. was not inclined to accept any of the contentions and hence by a detailed order dismissed the petition after dealing with all these three contentions. The original petitioner the appellant in the present appeal has brought in challenge the aforesaid order and the findings of the learned single Judge. Mr. N. J. Mehta appearing for the petitioner in the Letters Patent Appeal raised the following contentions for our consideration.

(3.) Miss Shah appearing for the respondents has raised one preliminary contention regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining this petition. It was submitted by her that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. Therefore she submitted that this petition could not have been entertained by this Court and it requires to be rejected as falling beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.