Territorial jurisdiction for entertaining a writ petition is determined by the location of the events related to the cause of action, as established by previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order bearing No.P.VIII-5/2001-134-EC-II dated 31.07.2001, whereby he has been terminated from service for having remained unauthorizedly absent from duty.

2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled as a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 1995. He applied for 15 days casual leave with effect from 18.09.2000 and the same was sanctioned in his favour. During the leave period, the petitioner returned to his native village at Chawalgam Kulgam but he was kidnapped from his residential house by some unidentified masked gunmen and was taken to some unknown destination. During his confinement, the petitioner was subjected to torture which had a deep and adverse impact on his nervous system. The incident was reported to Executive Magistrate, Kulgam, who in turn intimated the same to SHO, P/S Kulgam. It has been submitted that the petitioner remained under a prolonged medical treatment and during his absence, respondent No.3 issued an order bearing No.D.II-2/2001-134-EC-II dated 05.03.2001, whereby he was declared as a ‘deserter’ in terms of Section 9(f) of the CRPF Act. The petitioner was also held liable to be prosecuted for having committed the offence under Section 10(m) of the CRPF Act.

3. It seems that initially the petitioner had challenged the order whereby he was declared as ‘deserter’ by way of instant writ petition but during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents filed objections in which it was averred that services of the petitioner have been terminated in terms of the impugned order. Accordingly, upon amendment of the writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the aforesaid termination order.

4. It has been contended by the petitioner that the impugned order of termination is arbitrary and the same has been passed without following the due procedure of law and that the principles of natural justice stand violated. It has been further contended that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to overstay the leave period but due to the reasons stated above, he was unable to attend the duties, as such, he could not have been declared as a ‘deserter’. It has also been submitted that the impugned order has been passed without his knowledge and without his participation in the enquiry.

5. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. In the reply, it has been submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. It has been further contended that the petitioner had proceeded on casual leave with effect from 18.09.2000 to 09.10.2000 and he was expected to join his duties on 9th October, 2000 (AN) but he did not join. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was directed by the Officer Commanding of the concerned battalion to report for duty immediately in terms of his communication dated 15.10.2000 but he failed to respond to the said communication. Thus, according to the respondents, the petitioner has committed an act of disobedience which amounts to misconduct in terms of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. Accordingly, a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner vide letter dated 08.01.2001.

6. According to respondents, because the petitioner failed to report for duty, he was declared as ‘deserter’ in terms of order dated 05.03.2001 issued by Commanding Officer and memorandum of charges were sent to him at his home address vide communication dated 17.03.2001. It has been submitted that the petitioner failed to submit any reply to the charges and, accordingly, an enquiry was ordered vide office order dated 10.05.2001. It has been submitted that Enquiry Officer was appointed but the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer even after having been provided ample opportunities to do so. The proceedings were conducted by the Enquiry Officer in exparte against the petitioner and he submitted his report before the Discipl