VIPIN KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF'). He was posted at Keosue Unit of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation at Hajeera in the year 2004. On the fateful day i.e. 15.11.2004, he was assigned night duty between 9 PM to 5 AM. During the duty hours, the petitioner is accused of having committed theft of 1.5 litres of Naphtha from the sample point and attempted to take it out in the bus. This allegation has been made against the petitioner as he was caught carrying the stolen item when the bus was checked by the concerned authorities. Another Constable, namely T.D. Bhai of I.N.T. Section of the Unit is said to have seen the petitioner doing the aforesaid acts of misconduct. Disciplinary enquiry proceeded against the petitioner. Two charges were levelled against him. The first charge was that he stole 1.5 litres of petroleum product i.e. Naphtha for his own benefit, while he had been entrusted the security of the Unit itself, which amounted to an act of indiscipline and misconduct. The second charge against the petitioner was that he had gone to a place near South Barrier and North Barrier, far away from Watch Tower No. 6 where duty was assigned to him. The charge-sheet, dated 3.12.2004, was served upon the petitioner on 4.12.2004. Petitioner denied the charges and the enquiry proceeded. Initially an order of suspension was passed on 16.11.2004, but the same was subsequently revoked. One Keshav Patel was initially appointed as Enquiry Officer, but on an objection of the petitioner, he was replaced by one Ghanshyam Das Sharma, who submitted his enquiry report on 2.3.3005. During the course of enquiry, Constable T.D. Bhai and three other witnesses including one K.M. Raju were examined on behalf of the employer. Show cause notice thereafter was served upon the petitioner alongwith the enquiry report to which the petitioner submitted his representation on 19.3.2005. Ultimately an order of dismissal from service has been passed against the petitioner on 30th March, 2005. An appeal preferred by the petitioner on 4.4.2005, has also been dismissed on 30th August, 2005. Petitioner since was a resident of Saharanpur, he appears to have retired to his native place and filed a revision from Saharanpur on 5.11.2005. The revision has also been rejected on 15th February, 2006 and the order has been dispatched for being served upon the petitioner at Saharanpur. Aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 30th March, 2005, the order of appellate authority, dated 30th August, 2005 and the order passed by the revisional authority, dated 15.2.2006, contained in Annexure 9, 11 and 13 to the writ petition, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

(2.) With reference to aforesaid facts it is submitted that since revision has been filed by the petitioner from Saharanpur and order of its rejection has also been communicated to the petitioner at Saharanpur, therefore, part of cause of action for filing the present writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court.

(3.) It would be worth noticing that though the order has been passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority at Mumbai, but it is admitted that the revision was preferred by the petitioner from Saharanpur and the revisional order has also been served upon the petitioner at Saharanpur. No objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition is taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The writ petition has remained pending since 2006 and a period of more than thirteen years have expired. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others, AIR 2004 SC 3607, the writ petition is liable to be entertained and heard finally, since it is found that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. Oral objection raised on behalf of the respondents at the time of hearing, with reference to the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others, 2005 (5) AWC 4542 is, therefore, overruled.