Sukumar N. Oommen v. Union of India and Madras Fertilizers Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933 WP(C).No. 32178 of 2010 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MR.SUKUMAR.N.OOMMEN,S/O.LATE SAMUEL OOMMEN,44/1179,ASHOKA ROAD KALOOR,ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682 017. BY ADV. SRI.SUKUMAR N.OOMMEN (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF FERTILIZERS,SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, MADRAS FERTILIZERS LTD, MANNALI,CHENNAI 600 068. R,R1-2 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ||APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2010| |---|---| |EXT.P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE VISITING DIGNITARIES.| |EXT.P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE 'TERMS OF APPOINTMENT' DATED 31.3.2003| |EXT.P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTE 209.26 FOR THE MEETING OF| ||THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED 29.4.2003.| |EXT.P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DIRECTORS| ||DATED 29.4.2003| |EXT.P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE DATED 4.9.2002| |EXT.P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY| ||DATED 19.8.2005| |EXT.P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL VIGILANCE REPORT.| |EXT.P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL VIGILANCE REPORT DATED 30.12.2004| |EXT.P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DT. 22.5.2007.| |EXT.P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 30.5.2007| |EXT.P11|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12.1.2008 SENT TO THE FIRST| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXT.P12|A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER| ||DT. 18.9.2009| |EXT.P13|A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DT. 3.10.2009| |EXT.P14|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE ENQUIRY REPORT DT. 11.11.2009| |EXT.P15|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY DT. 29.4.2010| |EXT.P16|A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT. 29.4.2010| |EXT.P17|A TRUE COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE TO DEPUTY SECRETARY| ||TO GOVT. OF INDIA DT. 22.9.2010| |EXT.P18|A TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECT PAGE OF THE CHARGE SHEET.| |EXT.P19|A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DISCLOSING THE INTERPOLATION| ||DT. 11.6.2003| |EXT.P20|A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DISCLOSING THE INTERPOLATION| |EXT.P21|A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS FROM SERVICE POLICY OF MFL| |EXT.P22|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF NOTE SHEETS - FILE 7/3/06 V| ## W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2010 ## : 2 : ## RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 31.3.2003 EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA ITEM nO.209.26 EXT.R1(c) THE DECISION OF THE BOARD AS PER MINUTES. EXT.R1(d) TRUE COPY OF AGENDA ITEM NO.184.06 OF BOD MEETING DT. 30.7.1998 EXT.R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE FRAUDULENT CLAIM OF TRANSFER TA BY SRI. SUKUMAR N.OOMMEN. EXT.R1(f) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 24.6.2005 EXT.R1(g) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.9.2005 EXT.R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE DRAWL OF TRANSFER TA BY SRI.SUKUMAR.M. OOMMEN, CMD, MFL DT. 4.8.05. EXT.R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.8.2005 EXT.R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 28.8.2005. EXT.R1(k) TRUE COPIES OF THE REPLY DATED 12.9.2005 EXT.R1(l) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 15.9.2005 EXT.R1(m) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 30.9.2005 EXT.R1(n) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 22.11.05. //TRUE COPY// P.S. To Judge. ## **V.CHITAMBARESH, J.** ------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No. 32178 of 2010** ------------------------------- **Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner had his stint of service as an officer in the Indian Administrative Service in the cadre of Manipur and Tripura. The petitioner later joined Madras Fertilizers Ltd. (a public limited company) at Chennai in Tamil Nadu on the basis of Ext.P2 order of appointment with effect from 06.09.2002. The petitioner while serving at Chennai was served with Ext.P9 charge sheet based on Exts.P7 and P8 Special Vigilance reports. The allegations pertained to the drawal of Transfer Travelling Allowance and causing embarrassment to the management in selection process. The petitioner submitted written statement of defence to the memo of charges and eventually retired from service on 5.9.2007. The disciplinary enquiry proceedings continued at Chennai and the petitioner was served with Exts.P15 and P16 orders imposing punishment. These are under challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2010 2 the Union of India contending that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on the points raised. It was submitted that the stint of service of the petitioner relating to the charges was in Chennai in Tamilnadu. The mere fact that the petitioner was served with orders imposing punishment after he settled down in Kerala is of no avail. The decisions of this Court in **Capt.B.S.Prakash v. Food Corporation of India and Others** (2007 (4) KHC 17) and **Lt.Col. Mahender Singh Yadav v. Union of India and others** (2008 (4) KHC 916) were relied on in support. 3. The primary aspect to be considered is as to whether any integral part of the cause of action has arisen within the territory of Kerala in order to clothe this Court with jurisdiction. The petitioner was an officer in Indian Administrative Service in the cadre of Manipur and Tripura. The petitioner after the said stint of service joined a Public Limited Company - Madras Fertilizers Ltd. - at Chennai in Tamilnadu. The issue relates to the drawal of Transfer Travelling Allowance W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2010 3 and causing embarrassment to the Management after he demitted office at Tripura and joined at Chennai. The Vigilance reports were submitted while he was in the Public Limited Company at Chennai. The charge sheet was served while he was in service at Chennai. The written statement of defence was also submitted by the petitioner while in service at Chennai. The enquiry proceedings continued at Chennai even after the petitioner retired from service. The mere fact that the petitioner had settled down in Kerala thereafter is no ground. The fact that the petitioner was served with notices of hearing in the enquiry at Kerala is only a trivial part of the cause of action. The further fact that Exts.P15 and P16 orders were served at his address in Kerala is inconsequential. ## 4. The Supreme Court in **Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others** (1994 (4) SCC 711) has observed as follows:- _“8. ............. Therefore, merely because it read the advertisement of Calcutta and submitted the offer from Calcutta and made_ W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2010 4 _representations from Calcutta would not, in our opinion, constitute facts forming an integral part of the cause of action. So also the mere fact that it sent fax messages from Calcutta and received a reply thereto at Calcutta would not constitute an integral part of the cause of action.” (emphasis supplied)_ The Supreme Court concluded by observing as follows:- _“12................. It must be remembered that the image and prestige of a court depends on how the members of that institution conduct themselves. If an impression gains ground that even in cases which all outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate the_ W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2010 5 _growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in out duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice.”_ ## 5. The Supreme Court has in **Kusum Ingots &** **Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another** (2004 (6) SCC 254) after referring to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India reminded the High Courts of the determinative factor. It observed in paragraph 30 as follows:- _“30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd., S.S.Jain & Co. v. Union of India and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India.) (emphasis supplied)._ This decision has been followed in **Capt.B.S.Prakash v. Food** W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2010 6 **Corporation of India and Others** (2007 (4) KHC 17) and **Lt.Col. Mahender Singh Yadav v. Union of India and others** (2008 (4) KHC 916). The integral part of the cause of action is the drawal of the Transfer Travelling Allowance or causing embarrassment to the Management on joining Chennai from Tripura. The petitioner had at no point of time served in Kerala. The enquiry proceedings continued at Chennai only in Tamilnadu. No enquiry did ever take place in Kerala. The service of notice or the final orders imposing penalty is not an integral part of the cause of action. It is only a trivial part of the cause of action. 6. The petitioner placed heavy reliance on **State of Rajasthan Vs. Swaika Properties** [(1985) 3 SCC 217] referred to in **Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.'s** case aforequoted. The petitioner contended that this court has jurisdiction since a part of the cause of action has arisen within its territory. But there is an ocean of difference between trivial part of the cause of action and integral part of the cause of action. The venue of W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2010 7 service, the seat of enquiry and the generation of the orders of penalty are all outside Kerala. No integral part of the cause of action has arisen within the territory of this court in the state of Kerala. 7. I decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. This does not forbid the petitioner to agitate these issues else where. No costs. **V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.** nj. ## **V.CHITAMBARESH, J.** -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32178 of 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:- 1[st] March, 2012 --------------------------------------