The substantive rank of the employee at the time of the enquiry is crucial in determining the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority. The court also emphasized that the denial of natural justice must be established by the petitioner to challenge the validity of the disciplinary proceedings.

1. This writ petition is for the quashing of Exts. P5 and P6 proceedings. The petitioner was, as on 2-9-1974, an Acting Sub Inspector in the service of the Southern Railway at the Tambaram post, Madras. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him; and Ext. P1 is the enquiry report dated 7-5-1980. By the show cause notice dated 30-5-1980, a true copy of which is Ext. P2, issued by the 4th respondent, the Security Officer, Bangalore (N), Southern Railway, petitioner was asked to show cause why a penalty of compulsory retirement should not be inflicted on him. Ext. P3 dated 8-8-1981 is a medical certificate in respect of the petitioner; and Ext.P4 is a copy of the petitioner's letter dated 13-6-1980 whereby the petitioner acknowledged receipt of Ext. P2 show cause notice on 4-6-1980 and stated that he could not submit his representation within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the show cause notice and that he would send his representation on his resuming duty. The fact, however, remained that no representation was submitted by the petitioner. Ultimately after having considered Ext. P1 enquiry report, the 4th respondent passed Ext. P5 order which in its operative portion reads as follows:

"The silence of the party to the show cause notice indicates his indifference and confirms the opinion tentatively arrived at by a study of the case. Therefore, I have no hesitation in confirming the proposed penalty of compulsory retirement, which i do hereby from 1-7-1980."

The appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Chief Security Officer, Southern Railway, Madras by his proceedings dated 15-4-1981, a true copy of which is Ext. P6. By Ext. P6 proceedings Ext. P5 order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner was confirmed.

2. As already stated the challenge in this writ petition is directed against Exts. P5 and P6 orders passed respectively by the 4th respondent and the 2nd respondent.

3. Sri. P. P. John, the counsel for the petitioner, who argued the matter at considerable length, submitted that Exts. P5 and P6 are liable to be quashed for the following reasons: (i) the 4th respondent was not competent to pass Ext. P5 order, he not being the disciplinary authority having jurisdiction to pass an order compulsorily retiring an employee, in terms of R.43 and Schedule II to the Railway Protection Force R.1959; (ii) the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal or to pass an order in the nature of Ext. P6; and (iii) a copy of the report stated to have been submitted by Pw.1, the Vigilance Inspector, Railway Board, was not made available to the petitioner, thus denying the petitioner adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The counsel for the Railways, on the other hand, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the cause of action, if any, did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He also submitted that the petitioner at the time of the enquiry was holding only the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector, on his having been reverted from the post of Inspector with effect from 11-4-1975 as per the relevant SRO, the entry in respect of which could be found in the service register of the petitioner; and that being the position the 4th respondent was competent to pass Ext. P5 order; and the 2nd respondent could hear the appeal and pass Ext. P6 order. It was also the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was given all reasonable facilities and opportunities to defend himself, and, therefore, there was no force in the contention that Exts. P5 and P6 proceedings were vitiated by the non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play.

4. I should like to take up the question of territorial jurisdiction at the outset. In this case the event which led to Ext. P1 finding, Ext. P5 proceedings of the disciplinary authority and Ext. P6 order of the appellate authority, took place outside the jurisdiction of th