Mohan Singh v. Director General CISF & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939** **WA.No. 471 of 2018 IN WPC. 37793/2017** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37793/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-01-2018** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:** **MOHAN SINGH CISF NO.092303179 (CONSTABLE/GD), CISF UNIT, NTPC KAYAMKULAM, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 690 513. RESIDING AT: QTR.NO.A-27, TYPE-I, NTPC, CISF COMPLEX, NANGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 690 513.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYADHAR SRI.G.PRADEEP KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **1. DIRECTOR GENERAL/CISF CISF HEAD QUARTERS, BLOCK NO.13, CGO'S COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.** ## **2. INSPECTOR GENERAL/CISF** **OFFICE OF IG CISF, SOUTH SECTOR, CH.PT CAMPUS, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU.** ## **3. DY.INSPECTOR GENERAL/CISF** **CISF SOUTH ZONE HQRS, CHENNAI,RAJAJI BHAVAN, BEASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU.** ## **4. COMMANDANT/CISF** **OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,CISF UNIT,VISHAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, VISHAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN -530 035.** ## **5. ASST.COMMANDANT/CISF** - **"A" SECTOR, CISF UNIT, VISHAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, VISHAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN - 530 035.** **R1 -R 5 BY ADV. SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **SKK/4318** ## C.T. RAVIKUMAR & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. ========================= W.A. No.471 of 2018 ========================= Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2018 ## J U D G M E N T ## C. T. Ravikumar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.37793/2017. The appellant is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). While he was working at Vishakhapatnam Port Trust under the fifth respondent, Ext.P3 memo of charge was issued. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against him culminated in imposition of the penalty of 'censure' as per Ext.P5 order. Subsequently, the fourth respondent issued Ext.P6 show cause notice on 04.12.2015 evidently, in exercise of his power to review suo motu the penalty imposed in a disciplinary proceeding, proposing to enhance the punishment to withholding one increment for two years without W.A. No.471 of 2018 2 the effect of postponement of future increment. The appellant, thereafter submitted Ext.P7 objection dated 14.12.2015. After considering the same, the fourth respondent passed Ext.P8 order on 06.01.2016 and the penalty of 'censure' was enhanced to withholding one increment for one year. The appellant submitted an appeal to the third respondent, the DIG, CISF at Chennai. It was dismissed as per Ext.P11 order dated 19.05.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the appellate order, the appellant filed a revision petition before the second respondent, the Inspector General of CISF at Chennai. As per Ext.P12 order dated 17.03.2017 the second respondent rejected the same. Essentially, it is in the said circumstances that the writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. When the writ petition came up for admission before the learned Single Judge, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India raised a preliminary objection regarding the W.A. No.471 of 2018 3 maintainability of the writ petition. It was raised on the ground that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the learned Single Judge considered the said question as a preliminary issue and upheld the same. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable and it was also held therein that the appellant would be free to move the appropriate forum. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Central Government Counsel. 3. Evidently, the appellant resisted the said objection taking up various contentions. It is stated that from 20.01.2016 to 17.03.2017 he was working in Kayamkulam, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Though the alleged misconduct which persuaded the authorities to initiate the disciplinary action had occurred when he was working at Vishakhapatnam he would W.A. No.471 of 2018 4 submit that he preferred appeal and then revision before the third and second respondents respectively and they passed Exts.P11 and P12 orders respectively thereon while he was working in Kayamkulam. It is, in the said circumstances that the appellant contends that the preliminary objection raised was liable to be rejected. 4. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the appellant raised such contentions based on the decision of the Apex court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 6 SCC 254]. paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment would reveal that the contentions raised based on Kusum Ingots ' case were duly considered by the learned Single Judge. Going by the said decision, a writ petition will lie either at the place of original authority or at the place of appellate authority. In this case, admittedly the original authority as also the appellate W.A. No.471 of 2018 5 authority are within the jurisdiction the High Court of Madras and their offices are located not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Single Judge had also considered the rival contentions in the light of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan [2014(4) KLT 798]. Evidently, it was rendered relying on an early Full Bench decision in Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant [1999(3) KLT 629]. The Full Bench observed that when the action complained of taken place outside the jurisdiction, and the appeal was also rejected by an authority outside the jurisdiction of this Court the cause of action had to be held as only that one arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. In the said circumstances, the question is whether the finding of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition is not maintainable as the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction W.A. No.471 of 2018 6 of this court, is liable to be interfered with? Evidently, after holding that the cause of action arose not within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable the learned Single Judge made it absolutely clear that the appellant would be free to move the appropriate forum. In view of the indisputable fact that the place of original authority and the place of the appellate authority are outside the State of Kerala the decision in Kusum Ingots ' case (supra) cannot lend any support to the contentions of the appellant therein. In the light of the position of law settled by the decisions by Full Bench referred hereinbefore, there is no room for any doubt to the position that merely because the appeal and the revision were filed by the employee concerned while he was working within the jurisdiction of this Court and the orders thereon were also passed while so, it would not confer jurisdiction on this Court. As held by the Full W.A. No.471 of 2018 7 Bench, those aspects would not confer any jurisdiction, if it is evident from the evidence on record that the appellate authority and the revisional authority were functioning outside the jurisdiction of this Court and such orders were passed from there. The mere fact that they were preferred while the appellant was residing/working within the jurisdiction of this Court and he received such orders from here would not be sufficient to hold that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Indian Maritime University's case relying on an early decision of this Court in Nakul Deo Singh's case and taking into account the aforesaid indisputable facts, we do not find any reason to hold that the learned Single Judge had gone wrong in holding the writ petition as not maintainable, before this Court owing to lack of territorial jurisdiction. W.A. No.471 of 2018 8 In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.37793/2017. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. We may hasten to add that, as observed by the learned Single Judge, it would be free to the appellant to move the appropriate forum. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE Sd/MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Skk/16.310318