IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN, J.
K. Lakshmanan - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Represented by Secretary, Department of Defence, New Delhi and ors. - Respondents
WP (C).No.28322 of 2015(M)
Decided On : 05-05-2020
The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - Section 52(2) –Constitution of India- Art.226-Mere service of notice by the Special Officer, Town Planning Department, Jaipur under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 at the registered office of the respondents situated at Calcutta, within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal, would not give rise to a cause of action within that territory, unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action. The entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 52(1) of the Act was held to have arisen within the State of Rajasthan viz; within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court-The court held that if the respondents were aggrieved by the acquisition of their lands situated at Jaipur and wanted to challenge the validity of the notification issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under Section 52(1) of the Act by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the remedy of the respondents for the grant of such relief had to be sought by filing such a petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, where the cause of action wholly or in part arose.
Statement of facts:
The petitioner; a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was subjected to disciplinary action while working at the New Mangalore Port Trust. The reason for initiation of disciplinary action was that, on 29.05.2009, while the petitioner was deputed for duty at the KK Gate (out) of the New Mangalore Port from 13 Hrs to 21 Hrs, he was found to be in possession of cash, in excess of the amount declared by him at the time of joining duty. On initiation of the disciplinary action, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 Article of Charges and Statement of Imputation dated 6.06.2009.
Finding of the court:
The petitioner had challenged the original and the appellate orders before this court and by Ext. P13 judgment, he was relegated to his revisional remedy. Thereupon the petitioner availed the revisional remedy. By Ext.P19 order the revisional authority stationed at New Delhi modified the penalty imposed on the petitioner and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service. The petitioner having rejoined service in terms of Ext. P19 order, his cause of action based on Ext.P13 order of the disciplinary authority cannot survive- no part of the cause action with respect to Exts. P19 and P23 having arisen within the territorial limits of this Court, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be exercised to entertain the writ petition and render a decision on merits.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner; a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was subjected to disciplinary action while working at the New Mangalore Port Trust. The reason for initiation of disciplinary action was that, on 29.05.2009, while the petitioner was deputed for duty at the KK Gate (out) of the New Mangalore Port from 13 Hrs to 21 Hrs, he was found to be in possession of cash, in excess of the amount declared by him at the time of joining duty. On initiation of the disciplinary action, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 Article of Charges and Statement of Imputation dated 6.06.2009. The charges were to the following effect:
2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply denying the charges and explaining the circumstances under which he happened to be in possession of the excess amount. According to the petitioner, the amount was entrusted with the petitioner one Valsalan, a Crane Operator at the New Mangalore Port, who hails from the neighbourhood of the petitioner's native place. Since the petitioner was proceeding on leave to his native place on 30.05.2009, entrusted the amount along with a letter addressed to his wife and requested to hand over the money and letter to his wife. According to the petitioner, after accepting the money, he had gone to the Cabin of the Shift Supervisor to inform him about the amount in his possession. But before he reached the cabin, petitioner was accosted, searched, and the cash seized. The explanation offered by the petitioner having been found to be unsatisfactory, departmental enquiry was ordered against him. On conclusion of the enquiry, Ext.P12 report dated 02.09.2009 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer finding the petitioner guilty of gross indiscipline, misconduct, breach of trust, violation of lawful orders and acts unbecoming of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union. Thereafter, Ext.P14 order dated 22.10.2009 was passed by the disciplinary authority finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposing him with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pension and gratuity with immediate effect and directing the
Ambica Industries V. Commissoiner of Central Excise
Election Commission V.Saka Venkata Rao
K.S. Rashid and Son V. Income Tax Investigation Commission
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh V.The Union of India
Nawal Kishore Sharma V. Union of India
Oil and Natural Gas Commission V. Utpal Kumar Basu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.