The entire cause of action must arise within the court's jurisdiction for it to entertain a petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged enquiry report dated 30.12.2004, whereby he has been held guilty of the charges of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Challenge has also been thrown to office order dated 16.02.2005 whereby on the basis of the impugned enquiry report, the petitioner has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 16.02.2005 and his period of absence from duty from 03.06.2004 to 11.06.2004 has been treated as dies non.

2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver and was working with 151 Battalion of the CRPF under No. 941174369 CT/DVR. In April, 2004, while he was posted at Dimapur Katkhati in Assam, he was directed to be a part of CRPF Convoy to carry luggage etc to Dayapur. The petitioner proceeded from Dimapur on 31.05.2004 and reached Dayapur on 02.06.2004. He was carrying a service weapon i.e. 9 MM Pistol, one magazine and 35 live rounds of 9MM. The petitioner is stated to have reached Dayapur on 16.05.2004. On 25.05.2004, the petitioner was directed to carry luggage in his vehicle from Dayapur to Dimapur and at that time, he was accompanied by Inspector V. K. Sharma.

3. According to the petitioner, during the course of journey, Inspector V. K. Sharma had heated exchange of words with him and he was also assaulted by the said Inspector. It has been submitted that the petitioner was permitted by the said Inspector V. K. Sharma to talk to the family members on phone and he came to know that his wife is seriously ill. It is case of the petitioner that he, with the permission of Inspector V. K. Sharma, proceeded to Jammu and left the vehicle as well as weapon and arms in the vehicle to the knowledge of Sh. V. K. Sharma. It has been submitted that after remaining at Jammu for a few days, the petitioner immediately proceeded back to Dayapur to resume his duty, where he found that Inspector V. K. Sharma had not deposited the weapon. An FIR was registered against the petitioner and he had to secure bail from the court of law at Silcher, Assam.

4. The petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. According to the petitioner, he was not afforded full and complete opportunity of defending himself during the enquiry proceedings. It is further contended that the petitioner was not allowed to cross examine any witness. After the completion of enquiry proceedings, relying upon the alleged confession of the petitioner, he was found guilty by the enquiry officer, whereafter, vide the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service retrospectively w.e.f. 16.02.2005 was imposed upon the petitioner. Besides this, his period of suspension with effect from 12.06.2003 to 16.02.2005 was treated as dies non.

5. According to the petitioner, the punishment imposed upon him is unduly harsh and disproportionate to the charges proved against him. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he misplaced the order and other documents in respect of the enquiry and imposition of penalty upon him that were provided to him by the respondents. When he made request to the respondents to furnish him duplicate copies of these documents, the same were not provided to him. The petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2210/2009 and pursuant to order dated 01.12.2009 passed in the said writ petition, the copies of aforesaid documents were provided to the petitioner, whereafter, he filed the instant writ petition.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned enquiry proceedings as well as the penalty imposed upon him on the ground that the allegations levelled against him are fabricated and false. It has been further contended that theft of the weapon that was allocated to the petitioner has not been proved as such, the charges against the petitioner have not been established. It has also been contended that the petitioner was not provided full opportunity to prepare his defence an