The acquittal by the criminal court was honorable and not on technical grounds, rendering the dismissal order unsustainable. The inquiry process violated the principles of natural justice, leading to the court setting aside the dismissal order and ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits.

S. Muralidhar, J.

The Petitioner, who joined the CRPF as Constable (GD) on 17th April 2001 has challenged the impugned order dated 30th June 2012 passed by the Commandant-22 Battalion, CRPF, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand dismissing him from service. The Petitioner has also challenged an order dated 4th July 2016 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF Range Patna, Bihar (Respondent No.5) rejecting his appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955; an order dated 18th December 2016 passed by the Inspector General CRPF, Patna Bihar rejecting his revision petition, as well as the signal dated 14th November 2017 whereby he was informed that his representation under Rule 30 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 had been rejected. Earlier order

2. It must be mentioned at the outset that after the aforementioned statutory petition under Rule 30 of the CRPF Rules was filed in January 2017 and not disposed of, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 9721/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 23rd November 2017 by the following order:

"1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents had sought time to obtain instructions from the CRPF with regard to the status of the statutory petition filed by the petitioner against his dismissal order, as long back as in January, 2017.

2. Today, learned counsel for the respondents hands over a copy of the Signal dated 14.11.2017, that states inter alia that the statutory petition filed By the petitioner has been rejected.

3. A copy of the aforesaid Signal is handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who states that the present petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek legal recourse against the Signal dated 14.11.2017. The aforesaid Signal is taken on record.

4. The petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner, as prayed for."

3. Pursuant to the liberty granted to the Petitioner by the aforementioned order, he filed the present petition. Preliminary objection

4. There is a preliminary objection raised by the Respondents as to the maintainability of this petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is contended that all the impugned orders that the Petitioner has challenged have been passed in Bihar.

5. The Court notes that the earlier W.P.(C) 9721/2017 was entertained by this Court. It does not appear that the aforementioned preliminary objection was raised then. In fact on 3rd November 2017, an order was passed in the said petition granting the Respondents time to obtain instructions with regard to the statutory petition filed by the Petitioner against his dismissal order in January 2017 under Rule 30 of the CRPF Rules. It is only at the next hearing on 23rd November 2017 that the Respondents produced before this Court the Signal dated 14th November 2017 stating that his statutory petition had been rejected.

6. In any event, a perusal of the said Signal reveals that it has been issued from the Directorate General of the CRPF, CR and Vigilance wing which is located in Delhi. Since the said Signal is also under challenge in the present petition, the Court is of the view that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Court accordingly negatives the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents. Background facts

7. The background facts are that while serving as Constable GD in the CRPF, the Petitioner was posted in the Commandant 22 Battalion CRPF at Hazaribagh, Jharkhand ("Group Centre"). The Petitioner's version is that on 6th September 2011 he was called by one Mr. Nilesh Kumar Singh who had earlier been his landlord to come out of his Group Centre to collect money that he had borrowed from the Petitioner. The money was urgently required by the Petitioner for the operation of his wife who had suffered paralysis.

8. The Petitioner claims that he had orally informed an Inspector at the 22nd Battalion before leaving the Grou