1. The petitioner has questioned Order No.Estt/Disc-Trg/ 80Bn/03/3258-414 dated 22.03.2003 issued by Commandant 80 Battalion BSF by which punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 23.03.2003 has been imposed upon him. It is contended that order of dismissal from service was issued by invoking Section 11 of the BSF Act. The contention of the petitioner is that while invoking power of dismissal under Section 11 of the BSF Act, 1968, a show cause notice as contemplated under said Section has not been issued to him. It is also contended that copy of the proceedings has not been furnished to the petitioner as required under law.

2. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the present petition is not maintainable as this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. What is contended by the petitioner is that order of his dismissal from service came to be issued by the Commandant 80 Bn BSF Ramtirath, Amritsar (Punjab). An appeal is stated to have been preferred against this order which too stand dismissed by the Headquarter, Punjab Frontier, Border Security Force, Jalandhar Cantt (Punjab) vide communication dated 04.11.2003.

5. The respondents have contended that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner at Jammu and all that has been done is the communication of dismissal order at Jammu. It is further stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court entitled Union of India and another v. Narinder Singh Mehta reported in 1996 KLJ 470. The facts of that case are that the petitioner was convicted by Court Martial outside the jurisdiction of J&K High Court, at Alwar in Rajasthan and the sentence was confirmed and promulgated also there. After confirmation of sentence, post confirmation appeal filed from Jammu and the decision thereof was also communicated to the petitioner in Jammu. On the principle of merger of the order of conviction in the order passed in post confirmation petition which has admittedly been communicated within territorial jurisdiction of J&K High Court has given cause to the petitioner in the said petition to file the petition before this Court. The Division Bench upheld the contention of the petitioner by holding that the post confirmation appeal of the petitioner was communicated to him within territorial jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

7. The principle underlining this decision was that the order of the original authority passing a sentence or recording a finding against the aggrieved person has merged with the order of confirming authority (Central Government). The petitioner was right in moving this Court, since he received the communication order on post confirmation petition made by the Central Government while he had been serving in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents contends that in the present case order passed under Section 11 of the BSF Act did not require any post confirmation. The petitioner should have filed statutory appeal against this order. It has been held that the statutory appeal has been filed within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The principle of merger of order would not apply in the present case as was held in the earlier case.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in SWP No.57/2007 titled Atal Bihari v. Union of India and others, wherein it is held as under:-

"Be that as it may, the decision of Director General Border Security Force, in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 118 of the Act, having been taken beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, may not provide any cause of action to the petitioner to file the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document