TRINATH SETHI Vs. COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been referred to us for considering the point of maintainability of the writ petition by administrative order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, Calcutta, in view of reference of the matter for constitution of a larger Bench to decide the issue'as reflected in the judgment delivered on 12. 4. 2007 by Tapen Sen, J. in W. P. No. 2458 of 2003. The matter was referred to for constitution of a larger Bench to answer the maintainability issue of the writ petition by His Lordship Tapen Sen for the reason that with reference to the earlier writ petition by the present petitioner assailing the initiation of a departmental proceeding registered as W. P. No. 1708 of 1998, Barin Ghosh, J. as His Lordship then was, by the judgment and order dated 7. 3. 2003 passed the decision that writ petition was not maintainable as the cause of action arose namely, issuance of the charge-sheet of the departmental proceeding within the jurisdiction of the high Court, Jharkhand.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the issue as referred to about maintainability of the present writ petition the factual matrix of the earlier writ petition as moved and of the present writ petition are required to be discussed. Earlier writ petition being W. P. No. 1708 of 1998 was moved assailing the initiation of departmental proceeding and the charge-sheet thereof with the pleading (hat the charge-sheet though was issued by the disciplinary authority whose office is situated within the State of Jharkhand but the writ petition is maintainable in the High Court at Calcutta on the ground that the Head office of Coal India Ltd. is situated within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta high Court, which is the mother organisation of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. under which the disciplinary authority was working. Barin Ghosh, J. as His lordship then was, considered the matter by holding that as the place of eause of action is the test to identify the territorial jurisdiction of the High coult and such cause of action of initiation of departmental proceeding happened within the State of Jharkhand as the disciplinary authority's office is situated within the State of Jharkhand, even if it is assumed that Coal indit Ltd. has a control over the Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. as a sister organisation, still then writ petition is not maintainable as the cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta. On that finding the writ petition was dismissed and an appeal preferred stood dismissed for default.