Calcutta High Court
P.K. Mondal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 April, 1989
Equivalent citations: 93CWN663, (1990)ILLJ117CAL
JUDGMENT Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.
1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed on 5th October, 1982 by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the impugned order of dismissal from service being memo. No. V-15014/68/80-A/6 (52) 3956 dated 9th May, 1982.
2. The case of the petitioner in short is that a charge sheet, which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition, was issued in respect of certain wrongful acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.
3. An enquiry ensued in which the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. The report of the enquiry has been annexed to the writ petition marked with the letter 'F'.
4. On the basis of the enquiry, an order of removal from service was passed against the petitioner. The order of punishment has been annexed to the writ petition marked with the letter 'G'.
5. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by an order passed on 5th October, 1982. This order has also been annexed to the writ petition marked with the letter 'I'.
6. For reasons stated herein below it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case in detail or to decide the correctness or otherwise of the decisions impugned in the writ petition.
7. The admitted position is that although the incidents mentioned in the charge sheet happened in Durgapur, within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, yet the enquiry was held in Madras, the order of punishment was passed from Delhi. It is to be noted that there is no allegation in the writ petition as to the issuance of the charge sheet which is annexure 'A' to the writ petition. No allegation has been made in the writ petition as to competency of the author of the charge sheet to issue the same or as to any infirmity in the charge sheet. The entire petition is directed against the infirmity of the appellate order which was issued from Delhi.
8. In view of the decision in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Swaika Properties and Anr., , I am constrained to hold that this High Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ application.
9. Mr. Asish Kr. Sanyal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to para 8 at page 1292 of the said decision to impress upon the point that under certain circumstances even the receipt of a notice within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court invests this High Court to entertain the writ application. The words 'cause of action' as is well known means every fact which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court.
10. In other words it is bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to the case gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant.
11. In the instant case the bundle of facts, as stated in the petition, relates to the proceedings of the enquiry, the order of punishment and the order on appeal, none of which occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. I have already stated that neither the competency nor the allegations made in the charge sheet has been challenged in the writ petition. Although in the prayer portion there is a prayer for striking down the charge sheet also, but the foundation for doing so has not been laid in the petition. There is no whisper in the petition as to whether the charge sheet suffers from any infirmity.
12. In the circumstances, the case cited above applies with all its force to the facts of this case as in this case also, the petitioner merely received a communication of the appellate order at his residence within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
13. Mr. Sanyal also referred to the case of the Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Dilip Kr. Dey reported in (1988-I-LLJ-32). First of all the facts in that case are slightly different, inter alia, in as much as there is no allegation there that the petitioner 'merely' received the impugned notice in Calcutta. The facts of the case might have persuaded their Lordships to hold that in the facts of that particular case the High Court at Calcutta had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition. In my view the facts of the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to hereinbefore, are more applicable to the instant case than the facts of the case reported in the Labour Law Journal. Furthermore, in the said Calcutta decision, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above was not even cited and their Lordships of the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta did not, it seems. have the opportunity of perusing the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. Mr. Sanyal has also referred to a very recent decision of the Division Bench of this court in Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1989(1) CLJ 324 (D.B.). The facts of this case are entirely different and has no manner of application to the instant proceeding. In the aforesaid case the Head Office of the respondent company itself was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta whereof all policy decisions originated and the prayers were made in the said case for directing the respondent company, which had its Head Office at Calcutta, to give effect to a certain order. In the instant writ petition the facts, as I have already held, are entirely different and the case cited hereinbefore has no manner of application. In the instant case, nothing that has been challenged, happened within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
15. In the circumstances, I am constrained to hold that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the discussions made hereinbefore, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition. In the circumstances the application fails, the rule is discharged. I, however, make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the petitioner will be at liberty to agitate his grievances before any appropriate forum.
There will be no order as to costs.