S CHAOBA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service in the Border Security Force (for short "B.S.F.") on 24.12.1968 as Constable and he was promoted to the rank of Naik and thereafter, to the rank of Head Constable. While he was attached to 143 Bn BSF which was stationed at Malda, on 10.8.98 he along with another personal namely, LNK Ishu Bhai were put under suspension by the Commandant. Thereafter, the petitioner along with the aforesaid companion namely, LNK Ishu Bhai were tried by a Summary Security Force Court on the charges at Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition which is reproduced below: - "Charge sheet No. 69966739 Head Constable S. Chaoba Singh (Accused (No. 1) and No. 87005712 L/NK Ishu Bhai (accused No. 2) of 143 BN BSF is charged with :-

(2.) The aforesaid order of the Court was confirmed by the authority concerned and the petitioner made representation under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1988 which was ultimately rejected. Assailing the aforesaid proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court, the petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr N. Ibotombi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the present writ petition. The learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in the case of B.C. Patowary, petitioner-Vs-Union of India and ors., respondents reported in (1992)1 GLR 435 submitted that the High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case. But, on perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is found that the Court held that no cause of action within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 226 arose within the territorial jurisdiction over which this High Court may exercise the writ jurisdiction. It appears that the High Court did not consider the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as mentioned in Clause (1) of the Article 226. In the case at hand, the petitioner is a resident of Manipur. He joined B.S.F. and served at different places of India and it so happened that while his Battalion was stationed at Malda, some occurrences took place and departmental proceeding commenced at Malda which ended in dismissal of the petitioner from service. After he was dismissed, the poor petitioner had to come back to Imphal and he made representation to the statutory authority which was rejected and order of rejection was communicated to him at his residence at Imphal, and ultimately, petitioner filed the present application at Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench against the Union of India challenging the action of the authorities of the Union of India. Here, it may be mentioned that the Union of India or the Government of India exercises its jurisdiction throughout the length and breadth of the territories of India in respect of matters of fields on which the Union of India is empowered to exercise its jurisdiction under Constitution. In fact, various offices, headquarters, battalion camps, etc. of the B.S.F. are stationed and located throughout the territories of India including Manipur.