The cause of action arises when the appeal is dismissed by the appellate authority located outside the jurisdiction of the court. The receipt of the order only gives the right of action on the already accrued cause of action and enables the petitioner to meet a plea of laches or limitation raised in opposition.

Headnote:
JURISDICTION : [TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION] - [SERVICE DISPUTE] - [Art.226 of the Constitution of India] - [Art.226(2)] - [Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao (AIR 1953 SC 210), U. Col Khajoor Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1961 SC 532), Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Company (AIR 1963 SC 1124), S S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1990 SC 10), State of Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties (AIR 1985 SC 1289)] - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts to entertain Writ Petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the cause of action arises when the appeal is dismissed by the appellate authority located outside the jurisdiction of the court. The receipt of the order only gives the right of action on the already accrued cause of action and enables the petitioner to meet a plea of laches or limitation raised in opposition. The consequences of a proceeding in the larger sense are suffered by a person where he was employed at the relevant time and not in his native place to which he might have retired on his dismissal. The court dismissed the Original Petitions on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain these Original Petitions.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were dismissed from service and reduced in rank by the original authority outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The appeals were filed to the Appellate Authorities located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. The consequences of the orders were suffered by the petitioners outside the State.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The court dismissed the Original Petitions on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain these Original Petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petitions filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The cause of action arises when the appeal is dismissed by the appellate authority located outside the jurisdiction of the court. The receipt of the order only gives the right of action on the already accrued cause of action and enables the petitioner to meet a plea of laches or limitation raised in opposition. The consequences of a proceeding in the larger sense are suffered by a person where he was employed at the relevant time and not in his native place to which he might have retired on his dismissal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Original Petitions on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain these Original Petitions.

Judgment :-

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

These Original Petitions were referred to a Division Bench by the Seamed Single Judge in view of the apparent conflict in the views expressed in the decisions of this Court and in view of the importance of the question involved. The Division Bench in its turn felt that there was an apparent conflict between the views in the decisions of two Division Bench of this Court, one in Union of India v. Kunhabdulla (1985(1) LLJ 331) and the other in Thomas Kutty v. Union of India (1994 (2) KLT 258) and that the conflict requires to be resolved. That is how these Original Petitions have come up before the Full Bench.

2. Brief facts in O.P. 11321 of 1995 are: The petitioner therein while working as a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Bokkaro Steel Plant was issued a charge memo and after the conduct of a due enquiry was imposed a punishment of reduction in rank to the lower post of Naik till he was found fit by the competent authority to be restored to the higher post of Head Constable. This order was admittedly served on the petitioner at Bokkaro. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Bokkaro Steel Plant, Bokkaro. That appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 4.3.1995. Copy of the order of the original authority imposing punishment on the petitioner is marked as Ext. P5 and the copy of the order of the Appellate Authority is marked as Ext. P1 in the Original Petition. The order Ext. P1 was served on the petitioner while he was working as a Naik in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at HNL Kottyam. On receipt of the appellate order Ext. P1 the petitioner approached this Court with the Original Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the original order Ext. P5 and the appellate order Ext. P1. In the Original Petition the petitioner has not put forward any specific plea regarding the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. In other words there is no plea in the Original Petition regarding the basis on which the Original Petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents a specific plea was raised that the cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and since no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Original Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution was not maintainable. Thus one of the questions that fell for decision in the Original Petition was whether this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution if the light of Art.226(2) of the Constitution.

3. The brief facts in O.P. 12019 of 1995 are: While the petitioner was working as a constable in the 125 Battalion of Central Reserve Police Force (Independent Group) under the Commandant 125 Battalion Central Reserve Police Force Antheria More, New Delhi action was initiated against the petitioner for his failing to report for duty on expiry of the sanctioned leave. After a due enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority. The order was received by the petitioner while i n New Delhi. After receipt of the order, the petitioner returned to his native place at Trivandrum. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi. That appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was belated. The order of the appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner at Trivandrum. The petitioner has filed the Original Petition seeking to quash the order of the original authority dismissing him from service and that of the Appellate Authority (what is described as Ext. P4 order in the Original Petition, which is sought to be quashed is only a Me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(Ker) 304

Cases Referred (1)