NARESH CHANDRA SANYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate "Writ for quashing of certain orders passed by the Authorities of the Assam Railway against the petitioner reducing the petitioner from the rank of a Station Muster to a Signaller.

(2.) The petitioner was posted as Station Master at Dinhata which was in the State of Cooch-Behar prior to 1-1-1950 when Cooch-Behar was absorbed into the State of West Bengal. In January 1949 while the petitioner was posted at Dinhata Station he was charged with offences of serious misconduct involving the offence of forgery. On 14-2-1949 the petitioner sent a reply to the charge sheet. On 18-3-1949 the petitioner was summoned to the office of the Deputy Chief Transportation Superintendent who held a departmental enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner. It is alleged in the petition that in holding this departmental enquiry, all the statutory rules relating to such enquiry were not observed. Particulars of such irregularities have been set out in the petition. By an order dated 19-8-1949 which was communicated to the petitioner on 1-9-1949, the Deputy Chief Transportation Superintendent, Assam Eailway, who has his office at Pandu in Assam, passed an order at that place reverting permanently the petitioner to the post of Signaller. The petitioner on 20-10-1949 preferred an appeal to the respondent 2, who is the Chief Administrative officer of the Assam Railway, and it appears that on 1-12-1950 the following order was passed by the Chief Administrative officer at Pandu after consideration of the petitioner's appeal: "I have carefully gone through the above appeal and do not see any reason to alter the decision conveyed by the Deputy C. T. S. under his letter No. 649-E-58 (d) dated 19-8-1949." The petitioner has challenged these two orders as illegal on the ground that the statutory rules governing the conduct of the departmental enquiry have not been complied with in this case.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents Mr. Bhabesh Narain Bose has raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of this application and has also questioned the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 to entertain the present application. It is submitted by Mr. Bose that both the order of reduction and the appellate order were passed at Pandu outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the officers against whom the Writs are sought, have also their offices at Pandu and are residents of Pandu which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore this Court cannot in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 interfere with these orders at all. Article 226 provides that the High Court has power and jurisdiction to issue Writs and Directions only throughout the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction and under this Article it can issue Writs only to person, Authority or Government within those territories over which the High Court ordinarily exercises jurisdiction. In other words the High Court at Calcutta cannot issue any Writ to an authority or person in Behar in respect of any order passed or action taken in Behar. Therefore it-appears to me that this High Court has no power to issue Writs quashing the orders which were made outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court against persons whose obedience cannot be enforced by this Court in case they do not condescend to comply with the directions issued by this Court. If a person wants to get any redress against persons or authorities outside the jurisdiction of this Court, in other words, outside the State of West Bengal in respect of actions taken or orders passed outside the said jurisdiction, such person must approach the proper forum, which can grant relief in respect of these matters. In the case of Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Lloyds Bank Staff Association, Harries C. J., and Banerjee J. made the following observation: