Advocates:
['BRAJESH KR SINGH', '', 'RANA SURJIT SINGH', 'GAUTAM KUMAR SINGH', 'VED PRAKASH', 'RAJIV SINHA', '', 'BHARAT B PRASAD']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 3660 of 2017

Pawar Bhushan Abhimanyu (CISF No. 011360193

Const/GD)..…................

Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India through I.G., CISF, New Delhi

2. Sr. Commandant, CISF, MPRTC, Behror, Rajasthan

3. Assistant Commandant/Admn, CISF MPRTC,

District Behror, Rajasthan …………

Respondents

……

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

……

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Brajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. B.K.Pd., AC to ASGI.

……

5/09.01.2019

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority and the Appellate Authority by which the punishment has been

inflicted upon him after he was found guilty of the charge leveled against

him in the departmental proceeding.

The petitioner is a member of CISF. While he was posted at

Behror, Rajasthan, he was sanctioned leave. He overstayed for 55 days

and, thereafter, joined at Behror, Rajasthan. For overstaying, a

departmental proceeding was initiated against him and ultimately, a final

order was passed on 15.02.2010 by the Assistant Commandant, CISF

MPRTC, Behror, Rajasthan. The order was passed from Rajasthan.

Challenging

the

said

order,

the

petitioner

preferred

a

departmental appeal before the Sr. Commandant, CISF MPRTC, Behror,

Rajasthan, who, after considering the appeal of the petitioner, dismissed

the same. It be mentioned that a fine of seven days was imposed upon the

petitioner in the final order.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union of India

raises a preliminary objection that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction

to decide the application. He submits that admittedly, the misconduct was

committed by the petitioner in the State of Rajasthan, for which the

departmental proceeding was initiated in Rajasthan. The final order in the

departmental proceeding was also passed in Rajasthan by the Officer

-2-

concerned and the appellate order was also passed in Rajasthan.

Admittedly, all the orders were served upon him in Rajasthan.

To counter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since

the petitioner is now residing at Jharkhand, this Court has jurisdiction.

After hearing the parties, I find much force in the submission of

the learned counsel for the Union of India. Mere residence of the petitioner

will not confer territorial jurisdiction to this Court when the misconduct

was committed in Rajasthan, the proceeding was initiated in Rajasthan

and the final order as well as the appellant order has also been passed in

Rajasthan. No cause of action arose within the State of Jharkhand.

Thus, I find that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to

entertain this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed for want of territorial

jurisdiction.

(Ananda Sen, J)

Mukund/-cp. 2