HARIHAR PRASAD SON OF MUKHDEO PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS THROUGH THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Lance Naik in the Central Industrial Security Force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It appears that in the night of 19.3.1988, petitioner allegedly beat up a Constable with lathi lor which, after a departmental proceedings, he was dismissed from service treating it to be a gross misconduct and a gross indiscipline by order dated 29.2.1989. Petitioner challenged his dismissal order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Writ Petition No. 11688 of 1989 (Annexure -2), after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition with certain directions on or about 9.11.1994. Against this the respondents preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No. 133 of 1995 which was dismissed in limine on 23.2.1995. Thus, the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court attained finality. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, inter alia, set aside the order of dismissal with liberty to pass fresh order with certain observations and directions. Authorities passed a de novo order. Petitioner, since his dismissal, had come back to his native village in Bihar and was residing there. On de novo fresh orders being passed the same was communicated by letter dated 13th April, 1995 to the petitioner at his Village -Pandooi in the district of Jehanabad in this State (Annexure -3). Being aggrieved by the or - der, as passed and communicated to the petitioner at Village -Pandooi in the district of Jehanabad, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 12282 of 1999 which was dismissed for default in appearance by the counsel on 22.6.2000. As there was no adjudication in the matter, stating the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) PETITIONER 'scontention is simple and straightforward. He submits that even though the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the charge of beating a Constable was proved, the said Court was of the view that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate. It, accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal and passed orders as hereunder: -

(3.) COMING to the objection with regard to non -maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, Shri Mishra has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil & National Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Others, (1994)4 Supreme Court Cases 711. In that case, the Apex Court has deprecated the manner in which the Calcutta High Court entertained writ petition. In that case, the fact was that a Company of Kolkata had filed its tender papers at Delhi having read in the tender notice in the Times of India newspaper at Kolkata. The Tender Committee had to take a decision at Delhi. Negotiations and finalizations have to be done at Delhi. Still merely because the writ petitioner had read notice of tender in newspaper at Kolkata, the High Court asserted its jurisdiction in the matter. That was deprecated and rightly so. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, after dismissal, was permanently residing at Village - Pandooi in the district of Jehanabad in this State to the knowledge of the respondents. Having passed the order impugned, the respondents themselves communicated the same to the petitioner at Village -Pandooi, District -Jehanabad directing him to join his duties. The order was duly communicated at petitioner 'spermanent residence with certain directions. This, in my view, constitutes sufficient part cause of action within jurisdiction of this Court. As is well known, cause of action ts a bundle of facts and by virtue of Article 226(3) of the Constitution, any High Court in which a part cause of action arises can assume jurisdiction in the matter. In a matter, there may be cases where several High Courts simultaneously would have jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, in my view, the decision as relied upon, is clearly distinguishable and does not apply. I hold that the writ petition is maintainable.