IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

WP(C ) 40/2021

CM Nos. 195/2021 &

1084/2021

Reserved on: 01.03.2021

Pronounced on: 08 .03.2021

Rajesh Kumar Tomar

... petitioner

Through: -Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Abimanyu Sharma Advocate.

Vs.

Union of India and ors

respondent(s)

Through: -

Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1

The petitioner is a serving officer of Indo-Tibetan Border

Police („ITBP‟ for short), presently posted as Commandant (Staff) at

Sector Headquarters Srinagar, J&K. He has invoked the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of Article

226 of the Constitution to seek quashment of findings of the Court of

Inquiry dated 11.05.2020 conducted in pursuance of order dated

27.03.2019 issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner also challenges

order dated 19.06.2020 whereby and whereunder „Record of

Evidence‟ (ROE) has been ordered against the petitioner for holding

his trial by the General Force Court. The consequent orders,

including the chargesheet dated 02.11.2020 served upon the

petitioner, are also subject matter of challenge in this petition. As a

matter of fact, the petitioner has sought multiple reliefs against the

respondents.

2 WPC 40/2021

2

Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI, representing the

respondents, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the

maintainability of this petition on the ground that this Court lacks

territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. It is claimed

that since no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the

territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as such, this Court lacks

territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. He submits that

the Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Inspector General of ITBP,

Eastern Frontier, Lucknow (U.P) with regard to the allegations

pertaining to the period when he was posted in the Eastern Frontier

Headquarter. The subsequent orders for „Recording of Evidence,

framing of chargesheet against the petitioner and the order for

assembly of a General Force Court etc., have been issued by the

authorities located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He

submits that mere passing of the impugned orders when the

petitioner was posted in J&K, does not mean that a part of action has

accrued in the Union Territory of J&K which is subject to the

jurisdiction of this Court.

3

Per contra, Mr Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel

representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was posted as

Commandant 11^th Bn ITBP, under Sector HQ Gangtok of Eastern

Frontier up to 26.02.2019 and on 27.02.2019, he was transferred and

posted as Commandant (Staff) at Sector Head Quarters, Srinagar,

J&K of North West Frontier. And all the subsequent orders, which

are impugned in this petition, have been passed by the respondents

3 WPC 40/2021

while the petitioner was serving in J&K and, therefore, it cannot be

said that no part of cause of action has accrued within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court.

4

Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of

territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition, I am of

the considered view that the objection raised by the learned ASGI

has merit and must sustain.

5

The Court of Inquiry was ordered by respondent No.3 on

27.03.2019 with regard to the allegations pertaining to the period

when the petitioner was posted as Commandant 11^th Bn, ITBP under

Sector Headquarter, Gangtok. The Court of Inquiry was held in the

Sector Headquarter of Eastern Frontier. The impugned orders i.e the

orders of „Recording of Evidence‟, framing of chargeshee