P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the Counsel on record.

( 2 ) THE core question argued in elaboration by both the Counsel, Counsel for appellant/writ petitioner and the Standing counsel for Central Government at the stage of admission of this Writ Appeal is the question whether the High Court of Andhra pradesh has jurisdiction to entertain Writ petition. Incidentally, the merits and demerits of the matter also has been touched by the respective Counsel. The Counsel for appellant contended that since part of cause of action arose at Kurnool District in State of andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ petition and dismissal of the same on the ground of maintainability cannot be sustained and hence the Writ Petition may have to be remitted back to the learned single Judge to decide the matter afresh on merits. Strong reliance was placed on dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army staff and the learned Counsel also made an attempt to distinguish the decision in Kusum ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India #2 on facts.

( 3 ) ON the contrary, the learned Central government Standing Counsel while controverting the same however would maintain that there is no factual foundation even relating to the part of the cause of action. The Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion relating to the maintainability of the Writ Petition and dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable. The Counsel also pointed out that neither the affidavit filed in support of the writ Petition nor the reply affidavit had explained anything in this regard on the aspect of want of jurisdiction though the same was specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The learned Counsel further submitted that as far as the retiral benefits are concerned, the same are being processed.

( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the present Writ Appeal are as hereunder: the appellant/petitioner filed Writ Petition praying for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of certiorari calling for records from the file of the 3rd respondent relating to order No. P. XII-22-23/ 2002, Estt-l, dated 24-6-2003 confirming the removal order No. P. VIII-10/2000 EC-II dated 26-10-2002 of the 4th respondent and quash the same by declaring it as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with all other consequential benefits, monetary and otherwise and pass such other order or orders as the Hon ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. By order dated 16-8-2004 the learned single Judge dismissed the same on the ground that the writ Petition in the Andhra Pradesh High court is not maintainable.

( 5 ) THE petitioner/appellant is a resident of nandyal village and town of Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh State and he enrolled as a General Duty Constable in Central reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 10-6-1993 and after completion of initial training for a period of one year, he was posted to No. 76 battalion in Srinagar area in February 1995 and worked there till March 1997. Thereafter he was shifted to various units in C. R. P. F. and finally he was posted to Group Centre, c. R. P. F. , Shivpuri of Madhya Pradesh State in the year 1998. On the allegation that the petitioner/appellant had committed the offence of misconduct and disobedience while he was on duty from 10-6-2000 to 16-6-2000 in relation to recruitment of constables, a Departmental enquiry was ordered by the Additional Director General or police, Group Centre C. R. P. F. , Shivpuri of madhya Pradesh State. A charge sheet dated 17-8-2000 was issued to the appellant/petitioner and also three others and after calling for explanation and after conducting enquiry in State of Ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document