JAGANNATH MISHRA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant was dismissed from the service of the Respondent-Company after a disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated, while he was working in the office of the Respondent-Company at Dhanbad within the Jharkhand State. The disciplinary proceedings related to allegations arising from the period, the appellant was working in the office of the Company at Muzaffarpur, within the State of Bihar. The inquiry was conducted partly in Delhi and partly in Patna and the dismissal order was issued by the disciplinary authority, who was at Chennai and served on the appellant at Dhanbad. The appellant also asserts that even the charge sheet was accepted by the appellant at Patna, in the Regional Office of the Company, to which place he was summoned. It is in the context of these bundle of facts, the question arises as to whether the remedy available to the appellant, to challenge the order of dismissal, was available to him in the High Court of Patna or the High Court of Jharkhand; being the highest courts of the respective States.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, as we noticed, found that the initiation of inquiry and conclusion, being at Dhanbad, this Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction. While rejecting the writ petition, liberty was reserved to approach the appropriate forum. Before the arguments commenced, we specifically queried the counsel as to whether both parties would agree to argue the issue on merits, especially since, if jurisdiction is found to be available, the case would have to be remanded for consideration before the learned Single Judge. Considering the fact that the dismissal was almost two decades back and that the writ petition and the appeal were in the meanwhile pending before this Court, we were of the opinion that if we find jurisdiction, we could consider the matter on merits. Both parties agreed to argue the matter on merits after putting forth their contentions on the aspect of jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Raju Giri, took us through the documents, particularly, Annexure-2, wherein a letter dtd. 10/4/2003, sent by the appellant to the disciplinary authority at Chennai, specifically spoke of the memorandum of charges having been received through the Regional Manager at Panta on 4/4/2003. The learned counsel also took us to Annexure-7, inquiry report wherein it has been stated that the regular hearing in the case was held from 24/9/2003 to 26/9/2003 at Patna, after a brief preliminary hearing on two dates at New Delhi. It is then pointed out that after the dismissal, the appellant, a native of the State of Bihar, was residing in Patna and had filed an appeal and the memorial; the last of which was from his residential address at Patna. The rejection of the memorial by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director also was served on him at Patna. The learned counsel placed heavy reliance on Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.; (2014) 9 SCC 329, which is almost identical to the facts of the present case and the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court of Patna was found to be correct despite the appellant having been discharged from the service from another State.