1. Petitioner was enrolled as Constable in Border Security Force on 15-11-1988 and attached with Filed G-Team SHQ BSF, Srinagar. As ill luck would have it, the petitioner fell ill in August 2005 and was constrained to proceed on 40 days' earned leave with effect from 16.8.2005 to 24.9.2005. The ailment detected as TB Spine with depression Neurosis led to hospitalization of the petitioner from 12.9.2005 to 24.9.2005. The petitioner in the face of his domestic problems and his ailment, submitted his resignation to Commandant, 76 Battalion, BSF, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. The resignation was not accepted and the petitioner asked to resume his duty. However, the petitioner could not report to his Unit and the Commandant, 76 Bn, BSF, Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) vide order no. Estt/Dismiss/76 Bn/06/4149-66 dated 20.7.2007 ordered his dismissal from service.

2. The record discloses that the petitioner though vide notice no. Estt/Disc/76Bn/06/863-65 dated 5-5-2006 given an opportunity to show cause against his proposed dismissal from service, failed to submit his reply or show the cause.

3. The petitioner questions the order no. Estt/Dismiss/76Bn/06/4149-66 dated 20.7.2007 through the medium of instant writ petition on the grounds set out in the petition.

4. The respondents in opposition to the writ petition have raised a preliminary objection as regards jurisdiction of this court to entertain and deal with the petition. The respondents' case is that as the impugned order has been passed at Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, the jurisdiction to deal with the petition questioning the impugned order lies with the court at Rajasthan. It is insisted by the respondents that as the preliminary objection relates to territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the petition, the objection needs to be dealt with at the initial stage. The matter, in the said background is on agreement taken up in the first instance, to deal with the objection as regards jurisdiction.

5. Heard and considered.

6. In order to determine whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the petition, we have to find out whether the cause of action or any part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

7. The cause of action, as observed by Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 implies a right to sue. In the words of Supreme Court: "The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that every#31;thing which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. The entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts. All necessary facts must form an integral part of the cause of action."

8. It is well settled that the court has jurisdiction to exercise its power under Article 226, Constitution of India, even if only a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the court. So viewed, the focus of controversy in the case on hand is to be on the cause of action having accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this court to maintain the writ petition. The petitioner, as already stated, is aggrieved with the order passed by Commanding, 76 Bn BSF at Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. The cause of action to question the impugned order obviously has aris

Click Here to Read the rest of this document