L N MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Bhoopendra Nath Singh assisted by Shri S.N. Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Shukla, Standing Counsel, Central Government appears for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is serving in the Central Reserved Police Force. He has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 13.3.2004 passed by the Addl. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel-1), Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi communicating the order of the President of India imposing a punishment, after a disciplinary enquiry to reduce him to the lowest stage of pay i.e. Rs. 10,000/-in the time scale of pay of Rs. 10,325-15,200/-for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 15.3.2004 with further direction that during the period of such reduction he will not earn increase of pay and that on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing further increment of his pay.

(3.) Shri N.P. Shukla, has taken a preliminary objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the writ petition and in awarding the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. He has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Misra v. Union of India, 2004 4 ECR 2313, in which it was held that where in a writ petition filed against Court Martial proceedings the entire cause of action had arisen at Calcutta and that the petitioner was merely residing at Ballia in U.P., that would not given jurisdiction to Allahabad High Court. The objection by army staff can be issued either at Delhi, where he is located or at a place, where cause of action wholly or any part arise. The Full Bench relied upon Section 9, 20 Order 2 Rule 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in explaining the words 'cause of action' and thereafter the judgments of Supreme Court beginning from Lt. Col. Khazoor Singh v. Union of India, 1961 AIR(SC) 532; to Divisional Controllers v. Maha Devi Shetty, 2003 7 SCC 197 in holding that the Division Bench in Kailash Nath Tiwariv. Union of India, 2002 1 ESC 366, did not lay down the correct law.