RAM NIWAS BERA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 18. 1. 2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the enquiry report (Annex. 14) by which the Enquiry Officer found the charges in respect of criminal) conspiracy and theft of material proved against the petitioner and the final order dated 18. 6. 2000 (Annex. 16) passed by the respondent No. 4 Commandant, C. I. S. F. Chennai Port Trust, Chennai by which on the basis of the Charges proved, the petitioner was removed from service and the appellate order dated 27. 11. 2000 (Annex. 18) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General. CISF (SZ), Chennai by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force (for Short "c. I. S. F. ") as a Constable on 15. 6. 1994. After the recruitment under the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1978) and the Rules framed thereunder being Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1969"), the petitioner was put to service training at Devali District Tonk (Rajasthan ). It was submitted by the petitioner that on completion of training, he was transferred to Madras Post Trust (now Chennai Port Trust) on 31. 8. 1995. According to the petitioner, he was performing his duties with utmost zeal and dedication and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. However, the respondents without any cogent reason and only with a view to harass the petitioner, suspended the petitioner form service under Rule 30 (1) of the Rules of 1969 vide order dated 17. 1. 1999, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 1 THEreafter, charges in the following manner were levelled against the petitioner:- " No. 941401807 Constable R. N. Bera of CISF Unit, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai is charged with grave misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and facilitating crime in connivance with others. Const. R. N. Bera was instrumental in criminal conspiracy and theft of valuable imported materials by associating with others which happened at about 0350 hrs on 9. 1. 1999. THE criminals with connivance of CISF staff attempted to commit a theft of imported materials on 8/9. 1. 99 during the `c' Shifts hours. Being a member of CISF, Const. R. N. Bera was supposed to inform to the higher officer for safeguard in the Chennia Port Trust materials, but he failed in his duty and exhibited gross misconduct and reprehensible conduct by himself facilitating the crime in connivance with others. Hence the charge. CISF No. 941401807 Constable R. N. Bera of CISF Unit, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai was to perform duty in `c' Coy for safeguarding and protecting the property of Chennai Port Trust, Chennai. He was instrumental in the criminal conspiracy and the theft of materials by facilitating to break open the container No. Texu-3689/2-0-20 kept at JD-V shed. On 8/9. 1. 1999 valuable imported materials containing chloroguine and chiloramphenical chemicals and 9 Nos of bales of imported raw silk were stolen by criminals in connivance with the CISF Staff and others. Later on the vehicle used for transporting the stolen materials was seized at about 0500 hrs on 9. 1. 99 and the stolen materials were also recovered subsequently. In this connection a theft report No. I & II were also received from S. S. SM. V. JD-V (N) dated 9. 1. 99 intimated that during III shift on 8/9. 1. 99 some criminals removed cargo from the container No. Texu-3689/2-0-20 and loaded them in a lorry No. KVS-TMW-9412. THE container was destuffed on 9. 1. 99. As per the destuffing tally sheet it was noticed that 9 bales on dupion silk under mark CSC were short of the manifested quantity of 100 bales and CB drums under Nil mark (Cargo Chiloramphenical BP-93. 500 kgs of Chloroguine Phosphate BP 93) where short of the manifest quantity of 40 CB drums. THE stolen properties were recovered and handed over to the Port authorities subsequently. had Const. R. N. Bera informed the plan of theft in advance to the higher authorities of CISF the occurrence of theft could be averted. But Constable R. N. Bera himself became instrumental in organising the crime in connivance with his colleagues/and others. To escape from the charge he availed leave w. e. f. 9. 1. 99. Thus, he exhibited grave misconduct, indiscipline and negligence quite unbecoming of a member of a disciplined armed force of the Union. Hence the charge. " For these charge, the petitioner faced enquiry twice as previous enquiry was set aside. THE respondent No. 4 Commandant, CISF, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai issued memorandum on 9. 9. 1999 and conducted de novo enquiry against the petitioner. A copy of the said memorandum dated 9. 9. 1999 alongwith the article of charges, statement of list of documents and the preliminary enquiry report is marked as Annex. 11. THE petitioner submitted the written statement of the defence on 18. 9. 1999, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 12. During the de novo enquiry, the preliminary questionary was framed by the Enquiry Officer asking the various questions on the charges and the defence, copy whereof is marked as Annex. 13. It was submitted by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer ignored the questionary and submitted his enquiry report to the respondents No. 4 Commandant and the respondent No. 4 Commandant vide office memorandum dated 13. 5. 2000 served the copy of the enquiry report and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and asked the petitioner to file the representation, if any, against the enquiry report. A copy of the said office memorandum dated 13. 5. 2000 alongwith the enquiry report is marked as Annex. 14. THE petitioner submitted a detailed representation against the enquiry report on 5. 6. 2000, copy of which is marked as Annex. 15. THEreafter, the respondent No. 4 Commandant passed the final order purported to be under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1969 and dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 18. 6. 2002, a copy of which is marked as annex. 16. THE petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General (SZ), Chennai against the order dated 18. 6. 2000 (Annex. 16) passed by the respondent No. 4. A copy of the memo of appeal is marked as Annex. 17. THE respondent No. 3 Dy Inspector General (SZ) (Appellate Authority) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vice order dated 27. 11. 2000, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 18. THE further case of the petitioner is that the appellant order Annex. 18 dated 27. 11. 2000 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent No. 3 was served on the petitioner in Rajasthan on 19. 12. 2000 through registered post and being aggrieved from the orders dated 18. 6. 2000 (annex. 16) passed by the respondent No. 4 by which he was removed form service and appellate order dated 27. 11. 2000 (Annex. 18) passed by the respondent No. 3, by which his appeal was dismissed, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and these orders have been challenged on various grounds. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and a preliminary objection was taken by the respondents in the manner that since the petitioner was posted at Madras presently known as Chennai, he was charge-sheeted at Chennai, the enquiry was held against him at Chennai and after enquiry, order of dismissal was passed against him at Chennai and departmental appeal against the dismissal order was also decided at Chennai meaning thereby whole enquiry was conducted against the petitioner at Chennai and no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, in these circumstances, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. It was further submitted by the respondents that simply because the appellate order Annex. 18 dated 27. 11. 2000 passed by the appellate authority was served on the petitioner in Rajasthan, this Court would not acquire any territorial jurisdiction to decide the present controversy, as the service of that appellate order on the petitioner in Rajasthan does not give rise to any part of the cause of action at Rajasthan at least for the purpose of conferring territorial jurisdiction on this Court. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition and the same be dismissed as such.

(3.) ON the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the whole enquiry against the petitioner was conducted at Chennai and the final order as well as appellate order were passed against the petitioner at Chennai, therefore, no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and thus, this court has no jurisdiction entertain this writ petition. Apart form this, merely because the appellate order Annex. 18 was served on the petitioner in Rajasthan, this fact would not give rise to any part of the cause of action at Rajasthan, atleast for the purposes of conferring territorial jurisdiction on this Court. To appreciate the above contentions, Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, which speaks of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, is quoted here:- " 226 (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, order of writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise for such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. "