The main legal point established in the judgment is that the situs of the revising authority within the territorial jurisdiction gives rise to a part of the cause of action, and the court's scope of judicial review is limited to specific circumstances as outlined in relevant case law.

Harish Tandon, J.

1. A short but very interesting point is involved in this writ petition relating to the competence and jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of reduction of pay as well as the stoppage of increment passed by the original authority situate outside the jurisdiction of the High court.

2. Against the alleged misconduct committed outside the territorial jurisdiction and the order of the appellate authority which is also situated outside the jurisdiction of this court but the revisioning authority confirming and/or affirming the aforesaid order is situated within the jurisdiction of this court, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.

3. The matter relates to a disciplinary proceeding initiated under the Central Industrial Security Force Act 1968 by the competent authority against the enrolled members of the force for alleged misconduct committed by the said delinquent while posted as port commander in DGDB Rig at Nazira, Assam. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- from one civil contractor for entry of his labourers and materials and handed over his bank account number together with pay-in-slip for deposit. Having not deposited the said amount the petitioner alleged to have refused the entry of the trucks and materials in the said Rig.

4. The enquiry officer submitted the Articles of charge and invited reply from the petitioner and after recording the evidence and the statement, the enquiry officer came to the finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct.

5. The copy of the said enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and the disciplinary authority called upon the petition to deliver his defence against the said enquiry report which was duly submitted by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, ultimately, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and awarded the punishment of reduction of pay to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with immediate effect and further ordered that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority situated at Nazira, Assam and the appellate authority modified the order of the disciplinary authority by inflicting a penalty of reduction of the pay scale in three stages for a period of three years and maintained the other orders passed by the disciplinary authority.

7. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order of the appellate authority before the revisioning authority, situated within the jurisdiction of this court and upon dismissal thereof, have filed the instant writ petition.

8. The respondent authorities have taken a plea that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition. It is stated that the misconduct is committed outside the jurisdiction of the court and the entire disciplinary proceeding was conducted by an authority situated outside the jurisdiction including the order passed by the appellate authority. Mere situs of the revisioning authority within the jurisdiction does not confers power to adjudicate the said dispute.

9. Mr. Uttam Mazumdar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the situs of the revisioning authority is within the jurisdiction of this court and as such the writ petition is maintainable. In support of the aforesaid contention he relies upon the following judgments :

1. Nabin Chandra Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2966

2. Union of India Vs. Adani Export Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 126

3. Union of India Vs. Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd., AIR 1983 Cal 307

4. Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar De, 1987 (1) CLJ 354

5. Raichand & co. & Anr. Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors., 1998 (1) CLJ 425

10. Mr. Mazumdar strenuously submits that the person i.e. the civil contractor who alleged that the petiti