Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirman Sarkar vs Canara Bank on 23 August, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 23rd OF AUGUST, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 11116 of 2021
Between:-
NIRMAN SARKAR S/O SHRI NARAYAN SARKAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
EX.GOVT.SERVANT (MMGS SCALE II EMP
NO.643476) R/O 1082, SANJEEVANI NAGAR,
GARHA, JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIVENDRA PANDEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CANARA BANK THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN
CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR CANARA BANK
HEAD OFFICE NO.112 JC ROAD, BANGALURU,
KARNATAKA (KARNATAKA)
2. CANARA BANK THR. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE NO. 112 JC ROAD
BANGAULURU (KARNATAKA)
3. CANARA BANK THR. GENERAL MANAGER
CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS SECTION HUMAN RESOURCE
WING NO. 112 JC ROAD BANGALURU
(KARNATAKA)
4. CANARA BANK THR. DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER/DISCIPLINARY AUTHROITY
CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS SECTION HUMAN RESOURCE
WING NO. 112 JC ROAD BANGALURU
(KARNATAKA)
5. CANARA BANK THR. ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER/DISCIPLINARY AUTHROITY
CANARA BANK INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISON MANIPAL UDUPI (KARNATAKA)
6. CANARA BANK ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER/DISCIPLINARY AUTHROITY
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 8/26/2022
6:50:56 PM
2
CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE DA CELL HRM
SECTION 21 CAMAC STREET PARK STREET
AREA KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on the office objection as regards the maintainability of territorial jurisdiction.
The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been terminated from service by an order which is contained in Annexure P/1 which is issued by the disciplinary authority of the respondent from Banglore. Thereafter, the said order was further assailed in appeal and appellate authority is also stationed at Banglore and the subsequent review is also dismissed by the same authority. However, the counsel contends that the petitioner is a resident of Jabalpur and the impugned order has been served upon the petitioner at Jabalpur therefore, the ill effect of the impugned order has fallen upon the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and thus while placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, Mahadev Sailor Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Bombay reported in 1996 M.P.L.J. 386 submit that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition inasmuch as, the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that a preliminary objection has been raised as regards the maintainability of the petition while Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 8/26/2022 6:50:56 PM 3 submitting inter alia that the petitioner while posted at Kolkata (West Bengal) was found to be guilty of misconduct by remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty, thus, the alleged misconduct which ensued in passing of impugned order of termination was committed within the limits of High court of Kolkata. Thus, the present petition is not maintainable before this Court.
Learned counsel also submits that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable inasmuch as, in K.P. Goyal (supra), the Court considered the fact that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Professor in Agriculture College, Gwalior and thus, while considering the said aspect, the petition was entertained by this Court whereas, the petitioner has not been posted in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable. The counsel further submits that likewise, the reliance on the judgment of Mahadev Sailor (supra) is also misconceived inasmuch as, in that case as well, the petitioner therein was posted in Guna and, therefore, the Court held that the Gwalior Bench of this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The counsel also submit that in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Kusum Ingots (supra) since no part of cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court, this petition is not maintainable.
Having heard the rival submission of the parties.
The issue as regards the territorial jurisdiction has been summarized by the Apex Court. Kusum Ingots (supra) the Apex Court in Paragraph No.27 held as under :
27. When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place.Signature Not Verified
Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 8/26/2022 6:50:56 PM 4 at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority.
The Apex Court has also considered the judgment in the case of Lieutenant Colonel Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1961 SC 532. In the case of Khajur Singh (supra), the Apex Court observed that the jurisdiction of High Court does not depend on the residence/location of the person. In the case of Khajoor Singh in paragraph No.16, the Apex Court has held as under :
"The concept of cause of action cannot in our opinion be introduced in Article 226, for by doing so we shall be doing away with the express provision contained therein which requires that the person or authority to whom the writ is to be issued should be resident in or located within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction. It is true that this may result in some inconvenience to persons residing far away from New Delhi who are aggrieved by some order of the Government of India as amendment in Article 226. But the argument of inconvenience, in our opinion, cannot affect the plain language of Article 226, nor can the concept of the place of cause of action be introduced into it for that would do away, with the two limitations on the powers of the High Court contained in it."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 8/26/2022 6:50:56 PM 5
In the light of above decisions if the claim of petitioners is examined, the same reveals no part of cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere being residence of Jabalpur does not extend right to petitioner to file this petition before this Court. The other judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable having no applicability to the facts of the case in hand.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the interference is declined and the petition stands dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate forum having jurisdiction to deal with the cause.
(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE Shub Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 8/26/2022 6:50:56 PM