1994 Supreme(Raj) 961
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.K.Jain, J.
Madanlal Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
The Food Corporation of India & ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2151 of 1989.
Decided On : 15-11-1994
A writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Regulation 60 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1972, is not maintainable if the cause of action, wholly or in part, did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - MAINTAINABILITY - FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (STAFF) REGULATIONS, 1972 - REGULATION 60 - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DELAY IN CONDUCTING DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), challenged the show cause notice issued to him under Regulation 60 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1972, alleging that the departmental enquiry against him was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice due to delay and ex parte proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action, wholly or in part, did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The court also observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to challenge the show cause notice before the appropriate forum.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in the court given the territorial jurisdiction issue? 2. Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice due to delay and ex parte proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the settled proposition of law that the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises is to be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, disregarding the truth or otherwise thereof. The court held that mere service of the order under challenge at Jodhpur did not give rise to a cause of action in the State of Rajasthan. 2. The court did not delve into the merits of the case, including the delay in conducting the departmental enquiry and the ex parte proceedings, due to the dismissal of the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction, with costs quantified at Rs. 1500/-.
JUDGMENT
1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Anxs. 1 & 2 dated 3/24.1.84 and also pray that if any order imposing punishment is made the same may also be quashed. In alternative it has been prayed that the orders dated 4.4.1988, 5.4. 88 and 6.4.88 may all be quashed and the respondents may be directed to take the proceedings and on from the date as they were before 4.4.1988.
2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is employed as Assistant Manager (QC) in the respondent Food Corporation of India, a Government of India undertaking. It is alleged that vide a memorandum dated 3/24.1.1984 the petitioner was informed that an enquiry is proposed to be held against him on the charges set out in the Annex.1 of the memorandum and explained in Annex.2 thereof and some documents. It is also alleged that vide order dated 11.4.1984 one Mr.B.C. Bhasin, Joint Manager (INQ) was appointed as Inquiry Officer and by the order dated 27.4.1984 one Mr.K.C. Chawla, AM(G) was appointed as Presenting Officer. The order of appointing presenting officer was modified vide order dated 20.7.1984 appointing another person as Presenting Officer which was communicated to the petitioner on 18.9.1984. The petitioner was informed by memorandum dated 1.9.1984 that a departmental inquiry will be held on 29.9.1984 and on that date the petitioner's plea was recorded and some documents were put to him which were inspected and he was told that he may name his defence witnesses by 10.10.1984. By the order dated 8.9.1986 one Mrs. S.Choudhary, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. It is also alleged that the inquiry went in slumber till order dated 31.1.1987 was passed appointing one Mr.K.S. Sethi as the Inquiry officer and by another letter dated 31.1.1987 received by the petitioner on 23.2.1987 one Mr. J.C. Sharma, was appointed as the Presiding Officer. The Inquiry Officer was again changed vide order dated 24.4.1987 appointing one Shri G.S. Sewak as Inquiry Officer in place of Mr. K.S. Sethi. By the order dated 2.11.1987 one Mrs. Kiran Anand Lal was appointed as Inquiry Officer and one Mr. M.S. Aggarwal was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The petitioner has alleged that he sent a letter to the Inquiry Officer stating that he had submitted a list of documents to Mr. B.C. Bhasi, the then Inquiry Officer which he wanted to tender in the Inquiry but despite lapse of such a long time nothing has been heard. This letter/representation (Annex.3) dated 4.8.88 was forwarded by the District Manager, District Officer, Jodhpur vide letter dated 18.8.1988 (Annex. 4). It is also alleged that 12 documents were served upon him on 12.9.1988 including two notices of appearance dated 11.3.1988 and 14.3.1988 (Annex. 6 & 7) and the copies of order-sheets dated 8.3.88, 9.3.88, 4.4.88, 5.4.88 and 6.5.88 (Annex. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively) disclosing that the petitioner absented from hearing despite service of notice of hearing. It is further alleged that he moved an application to the District Manager, Jodhpur on 4.11.1988 inquiring of him as to when the notices for appearance dated 11.3.88 and 14.3.88 were received in his office, a copy of which was endorsed to the Inquiry Officer vide Annex.13. The Assistant Manager (T), for District Manager in response to his application informed the petitioner that the notices for appearance dated 11.3.88 and 14.3.88 were received in the office of District Manager on 12.9.1988 and were received from the Regional Office, Jaipur vide letter dated 9.9.88 which were received vide letter dated 21.12.88 (Annex. 14). The petitioner has alleged that he made a representation dated 14.2.1979 Annex. 15 to the Enquiry Officer praying that ex-parte proceedings has been taken without following the principles of natural justice and that he may be given an opportunity of hearing. The respresentation Annex. 15 was forwarded by the District Manager vide his lett
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
