YASHWANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is resident of village and Post Office Santokhgarh, Tehsil and District Una (H.P.). He has filed this petition with a prayer for quashing order dated 29.10.1997 ( Annexure P.2) passed by Commandant, CISF unit, DSP, Durgapur-08 District Burdwan (W.B.). A further prayer has been made for quashing order dated 26.7.2004 (Annexure P.8) passed by the appellate authority - Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit DSP Durgaphr -08 District Burdwan (W.B.), modifying the order of removal from service into compulsory retirement. It is also prayed that the order of compulsory retirement may be set aside by reinstating the petitioner in service.

(2.) Mr. Aman Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection at the outset and asserted that this Court completely lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present petition as the entire cause of action has taken place in the State of West Bengal. According to the learned Counsel, charge sheet was issued on 20.1.1997 which was served at his residential quarter at at CDLB Brooklyne Family Complex, Type II,. Quarter No. 413, Paharpur Road, Calcutta 24 (WB). Inspector of CISF Unit ASP Durgapur was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. A letter issuing charge sheet as well as the letter appointing Enquiry Officer came back with the remarks 'not available'. Consequently the orders were sent to the native place of the petitioner on 18.3.1997. On 1.4.1997, the petitioner sent an application to the office of respondent No. 5 for accepting his resignation from service w.e.f. 28.4.1996. The whole subsequent correspondence has taken place between the petitioner and the department at Durgapur. Eventually, ex-parte enquiry was held and he was found guilty of the charges. Respondent No. 4 by accepting the enquiry report passed the order of his removal from service by an order dated 29.10.1997 ( Annexure P.2) which was passed at Durgapur 08 (WB) and thereafter appeal was partially accepted at the same place by converting the order of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement. It is in the afore-mentioned backdrop that the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel is required to be considered. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Lt. Col. Sanjay Sitanshu v. Union of India and Ors. Cr.W.P. No. 922 of 2004 decided on 13.1.2006 and a Full Bench judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 Lab. I.C. 2229.

(3.) Mr. Balwinder Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has placed reliance on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff and Anr.