Judgment

Sanjeev Kumar, J.—The petitioner is a serving officer of Indo-Tibetan Border Police (‘ITBP’ for short), presently posted as Commandant (Staff) at Sector Headquarters Srinagar, J&K. He has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution to seek quashment of findings of the Court of Inquiry dated 11.05.2020 conducted in pursuance of order dated 27.03.2019 issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner also challenges order dated 19.06.2020 whereby and whereunder ‘Record of Evidence’ (ROE) has been ordered against the petitioner for holding his trial by the General Force Court. The consequent orders, including the charge-sheet dated 02.11.2020 served upon the petitioner, are also subject matter of challenge in this petition. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has sought multiple reliefs against the respondents.

2. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI, representing the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. It is claimed that since no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. He submits that the Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Inspector General of ITBP, Eastern Frontier, Lucknow (U.P) with regard to the allegations pertaining to the period when he was posted in the Eastern Frontier Headquarter. The subsequent orders for ‘Recording of Evidence, framing of charge-sheet against the petitioner and the order for assembly of a General Force Court etc., have been issued by the authorities located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that mere passing of the impugned orders when the petitioner was posted in J&K, does not mean that a part of action has accrued in the Union Territory of J&K which is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Per contra, Mr Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was posted as Commandant 11th Bn ITBP, under Sector HQ Gangtok of Eastern Frontier up to 26.02.2019 and on 27.02.2019, he was transferred and posted as Commandant (Staff) at Sector Head Quarters, Srinagar, J&K of North West Frontier. And all the subsequent orders, which are impugned in this petition, have been passed by the respondents while the petitioner was serving in J&K and, therefore, it cannot be said that no part of cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition, I am of the considered view that the objection raised by the learned ASGI has merit and must sustain.

5. The Court of Inquiry was ordered by respondent No.3 on 27.03.2019 with regard to the allegations pertaining to the period when the petitioner was posted as Commandant 11th Bn, ITBP under Sector Headquarter, Gangtok. The Court of Inquiry was held in the Sector Headquarter of Eastern Frontier. The impugned orders i.e. the orders of ‘Recording of Evidence’, framing of charge-sheet, order for convening of General Force Court, were passed by the authorities located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Court of Inquiry was conducted at the Eastern Frontier Headquarters at Aliganj, Lucknow (UP). Simply because, when the orders impugned were passed and the action was initiated, the petitioner was posted in Jammu and Kashmir would not clothe this Court with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. As a matter of fact, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel was fair enough to concede that not even a single order pertaining to the enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner has been passed by any authority in Jammu and Kashmir and that the allegations whi