Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Bhaskar Chandra Mohapatra - Appellant
Versus
Uco Bank & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 76 of 2020
Decided On : 13-07-2021
Territorial Jurisdiction - UCO Bank Dismissal Case - Article 226 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India - 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was dismissed from service by UCO Bank, leading to a series of litigations. The present appeal challenged the dismissal on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a part of the cause of action did arise within its jurisdiction, and the dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Article 226 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India and relevant case laws to determine the territorial jurisdiction and found that a part of the cause of action did arise within its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The writ petition was restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for a fresh hearing on merits.
ORDER
1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th January, 2020 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's Writ Petition (C) No.18129 of 2016 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and for a direction for restoring the aforementioned writ petition.
3. This is in fact the second round of litigation concerning the appellant's dismissal from the service by the respondent-UCO bank.
4. The background facts are that the Appellant while working as a Branch Manager on ad-hoc basis in Fauzdari Branch in Bihar was placed under suspension in 3rd May, 2007. The disciplinary proceedings commenced and a charge sheet was submitted on 24th September, 2007. The final order of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) was passed on 24th June, 2008 dismissing the Appellant from service. The said order was admittedly communicated to the Appellant in his residential address At-Kantapal, Po-Charampa, District-Bhadrak. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority (AA) by the order dated 3rd February, 2010 which again was communicated to the Appellant at his residential address at Charampa Bhadrak.
5. The Appellant challenged the said order in W.P. (C) No.5092 of 2010 before this Court. By a detailed order dated 14th July 2015, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition setting aside the order of dismissal and remitting the matter for a fresh enquiry in consonance with the 1976 Regulations and dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
6. Significantly, the UCO Bank which contested the above writ petition does not appear to have raised the issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In any event, the learned Single Judge has made no reference to any such submission in the judgment dated 14th July, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.5092 of 2010. UCO bank accepted the said judgment and in fact implemented the directions therein.
7. On remand, the DA again passed a dismissal order on 8th March, 2016. By this time, the Petitioner was placed under suspension. The fresh dismissal order was communicated to the Petitioner at his residential address at Charampa, Bhadrak. The Appellant was by this time said to be suffering from paralysis and undergoing treatment. The Appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 9th September, 2016 at Lucknow and this order too was communicated to the Petitioner at his address at Charampa, Bhadrak through the UCO Bank Bhadrak Branch.
8. Thereafter the Appellant filed the second writ petition, i.e., W.P. (C) No. 18129 of 2016 in this Court. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 28th January, 2020 accepted the plea of UCO Bank and held that this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that merely because the Court on an earlier occasion entertained the writ petition, without adjudicating the issue, cannot confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court over such disputes since no part of the cause of action arose in this State.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law for more than one reason.
10. The UCO Bank did not raise the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction when it contested the earlier W.P. (C) No. 5092 of 2010 filed by the Appellant on merits. UCO Bank accepted the judgment dated 14th July, 2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.5092 of 2010. The issue of territorial jurisdiction was raised for by it for the first time in the subsequent W.P. (C) No. 18129 of 2016 filed by the Appellant.
11. Secondly it would not be entirely correct to say that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. By the time the order of the DA was passed in the first round, the Appellant had already retired. The order 3rd February, 2010 of the AA dismissing his appeal was communicated to the A
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
