BINOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Harendra Pratap Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The learned Additional Standing Counsel raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition. He submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to court -martial proceedings which, in his submission, has not been challenged in the present proceedings. The petitioner claims post -retirement benefits for having rendered services covering 15 years 11 months and 23 days.

(2.) THE learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was last serving at Bangalore where the court -martial proceedings had taken place. The order of the disciplinary authority was passed at Bangalore. The seat of the appellate authority is at Pune. Relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2001(2) Bihar Law Judgments 525 [:2001(4) PLJR 678] (Sushil Kumar Pandey V/s. Union of India and others), he submits that no part of the cause of action within the meaning of Article 226. of the Constitution of India.has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable in this Court.

(3.) IT appears to me that the two Division Benches judgments are seemingly contradictory to each other. In my view, it needs the authoritative pronouncement of a Full Bench to resolve the conflict between the two Division Benches and thereby a larger issue of vital public interest relating to jurisdiction of this Court.