W.P.(C) No. 28162 of 2021 (WP(C).28162/21)

_**WP(C).28162/21**_ 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 22ND MAGHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 28162 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** MS. SOUMYA S. AGED 29 YEARS D/O. SATYAPALAN B, R R SADANAM, PAZHAKUTTY P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 561. BY MS. SOUMYA S.(Party-In-Person) ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO, HEAD OFFICE 112 J C ROD, BANGALORE 560002. 2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL INSPECTORATE, CANARA BANK, 524 ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI 600018. 3 THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HUMAN RESOURCE WING, HEAD OFFICE, CANARA BANK, 112 J C ROAD, BANGALORE 560002. 4 DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, ASST GENERAL MANAGER, HRM SECTION, DA CELL, CIRCLE OFFICE, CANARA BANK 524, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET , CHENNAI 600018. 5 INQUIRING AUTHORITY, DA CELL, CIRCLE OFFICE, CANARA BANK, 524, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET CHENNAI 600018. 6 REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, CANARA BANK, SRI. SARADA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL, CAMPUS, II FLOOR, FAIR LANDS, SALEM, TAMIL NADU 636 016. 7 MANAGEMENT WITNESS, _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 2 VIGILANCE UNIT, 524, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI 600018. CHENNAI. 8 REVIEW AUTHORITY, HRM SECTION, HEAD OFFICE , CANARA BANK , 112 J C ROAD, BANGALORE 560002. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 3 ## **V.G.ARUN, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **W.P(C).No. 28162 of 2021** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 11[th] day of February, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, while working as Branch Head at Malluppatti Branch under the Salem Regional Office of the Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank), was placed under suspension _vide_ Exhibit P2 order dated 2.11.2019. Exhibit P7 charge sheet was drawn up thereafter, followed by a departmental enquiry. The enquiry culminated in Exhibit P17 report dated 25.6.2020, finding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against her. This resulted in the petitioner being terminated from service as per Exhibit P1 proceedings dated 5.10.2020. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P19 appeal, which was dismissed by Exhibit P20 order. Thereupon, petitioner preferred Exhibit P21 review petition, which also stands rejected by Exhibit P22 order. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order of termination and to direct reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent Bank raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the writ petition. In view of the objection, the petitioner, _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 4 who is appearing in person, and Sri.Jai Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, were called upon to address arguments on the question of jurisdiction. 3. According to the petitioner, Exhibit P19 appeal and Exhibit P21 review petition were preferred from her residence at Kollam and orders rejecting the appeal and review were also sent to her residential address. As such, part of cause of action for filing the appeal has arisen within the territorial limits of the High Court of Kerala, thereby conferring jurisdiction on this court to entertain the writ petition. In support of the contention, reference is made to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in _**Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India**_ [(2014) 9 SCC 329] and the judgment in _**Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra v. Union of India and Others**_ [Civil Appeal No.3630 of 2020]. It is contended that going by the dictum in _**Nawal Kishore Sharma** (supra)_ , the writ petition is maintainable, since a legal right claimed by the petitioner has been infringed by the respondents within the limits of this Court's jurisdiction. Referring to the facts in _**Nawal Kishore Sharma**_ (supra) it is submitted that the petitioner therein was found medically unfit. Thereafter, the order cancelling his registration as Seaman was served at his native place in Bihar. Upon receipt of the order, he sent a representation to the respondents from his residence claiming disability compensation. The order, rejecting petitioner's representation was also served _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 5 at his residential address. The petitioner challenged those orders before the Patna High Court. The High Court having refused to entertain the challenge on the premise that the impugned proceedings were issued from Mumbai, petitioner approached the Apex Court. Upholding the challenge, the Apex Court held that the Patna High Court had jurisdiction, even though the order cancelling petitioner's registration and the order rejecting his representation were passed at Mumbai. In _**Shanti Devi,Alias Shanti Mishra**_ (supra), the petitioner's monthly pension was stopped abruptly and an order issued, directing refund of a portion of the pension received by her. The orders, which had serious adverse effects on the petitioner, were served at Darbhanga, her native place. Therein also the Apex Court held that the petitioner had cause of action for filing the writ petition before the Patna High Court, even though the impugned orders were issued from Asansol, within the jurisdictional limits of the Jharkhand High Court. 4. Answering the contentions, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of this Court as mere filing of an appeal or service of adverse orders will not give rise to cause of action. The Full Bench decisions of this Court in _**Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan**_ [2014 (4) KLT 798] and _**Dental Council of India v. Viswanath**_ [2018 (3) KLT 255] are pressed into service to buttress the contention. _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 6 5. The Following undisputed facts are relevant for deciding the jurisdictional issue; Disciplinary proceedings alleging misconduct was initiated against the petitioner and she was placed under suspension while working as Manager of Malluppatti Branch under the Salem Regional Office. Departmental enquiry against the petitioner was conducted at the Salem Regional Office and the order of termination was issued from the Bank's Circle Office at Chennai. The appeal against that order was submitted by the petitioner from her residence at Kollam and the order dismissing the appeal was served at her residential address. 6. To answer the legal contention, one has to commence from Article 226(2) of the Constitution, extracted here under for easy reference. ## “ _226._ _**Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-**_ _(1)_ … _**...**_ _(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.”_ _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 7 From a careful scrutiny of the Article it is clear that, irrespective of whether the seat of the authority that passed the order is situated outside the territorial limits, High Court can exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen within its territorial limits. As held by the Apex Court in _**Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim**_ [(2007) 11 SCC 335], for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred in the writ petition would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. In _**Nawal Kishore Sharma**_ (supra) Apex Court observed that, cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2), for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On facts, the Apex Court found that, since the petitioner was served with the order of discharge and the order rejecting his representation claiming disability compensation at his residential address, the High Court of Patna had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed against those orders. Likewise, in _**Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra**_ (supra), orders directing stoppage of pension and refund of portion of the pension already paid were communicated to the petitioner at her native place. Hence, it was held that the Patna High Court within the limits of which she was residing, had jurisdiction. 7. As far as the instant case is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the alleged misconduct had taken place while the petitioner was working at the _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 8 Mallupatti Branch. Further, the suspension order, disciplinary enquiry and order of termination were all served/ held either at Salem or Chennai. Hence, the only question is whether, filing of appeal against the order of termination from the petitioner's native place and communication of the order rejecting the appeal to her residential address will give rise to part of cause of action. The answer to that question is available from Paragraphs 28 to 30 of the decision in _**Indian Maritime University**_ (supra) extracted hereunder; “ _28. Thus, law is settled that in view of the provisions contained in Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, a writ petition can be maintained in a High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which an integral part of the cause of action has arisen. Though the expression "cause of action" is not defined either in the Constitution or in the Code of Civil Procedure, it has to be understood in the light of section 20(c) of the CPC and it means a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for a petitioner or a plaintiff to seek relief in a court of law. It is also the settled principle of law that in a service dispute, issue of an order of termination gives rise to cause of action and service of that communication, though is necessary to give effect to the order, does not amount to a part of the cause of action much less an integral part of the cause of action. In other words, the issue of the order gives rise to the cause of action and the service of the order gives rise to a right of action._ _29. Having understood the principles laid down in Nakul Deo Singh as above, the further question is whether there is any distinction between_ _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 9 _the service of the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority rejecting an appeal filed against the order of dismissal. We have already seen from the Full Bench judgment that when an appeal is filed against an order of dismissal and the appellate authority passed an order thereon, the order of the disciplinary authority would merge into the appellate authority's order. If the principles governing cause of action with respect to the order issued by the disciplinary authority are applied in the context of an order issued by the appellate authority, the conclusion is irresistible that the cause of action arises on the issue of the appellate order and the service of the appellate authority's order does not become any part of the cause of action except that it gives right of action to the aggrieved. If service of the appellate order is not an integral part of the cause of action, the service of the order of the disciplinary authority also will not give rise to any part of the cause of action. This will be so even in a case where the situation is in the reverse and the fact that only on service on the addressee, such orders become effective does not alter the situation in any manner, except that it gives right of action to the aggrieved.”_ 8. The authentic decision of the Full Bench leaves no room for doubt that, service of adverse orders is not an integral part of the cause of action and at best, can only be right for action. Being so, the challenge against maintainability on the ground of territorial jurisdiction is liable to be upheld. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to raise all contentions and seek appropriate reliefs before the _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 10 competent court. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** _vgs_ _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 11 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28162/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|A TRUE COPY OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DISMISSAL| ||ORDER NOL CO CHN/HRMS-DAC/293/2020 DISMISSAL| ||ORDER XEROX COPY). DTD. 5.10.2020.| |Exhibit P2|A TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 2.11.2019.| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF SECOND CONFESSION LETTER OBTAINED| ||FROM THE PETITIONER BY COERCION DTD. 18.11.2019.| |Exhibit P4|A TRUE COPY OF THIRD CONFESSION LETTER OBTAINED| ||FROM THE PETITIONER BY COERCION, DTD 02.12.2019.| |Exhibit P5|A TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||TO THE DGM, ZONAL INSPECTORATE, CHENNAI THAT THE| ||LETTER DATED 31.10.2019 18.11.2019 AND 02.12.2019| ||OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER BY COERCION SHALL BE| ||TREATED AS NULL AND VOID. DTD. 10.02.2020.| |Exhibit P6|A TRUE COPY OF FIRST CONFESSION LETTER OBTAINED| ||FROM THE PETITIONER BY COERCION DTD. 31.10.2019.| |Exhibit P7|A TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET REF NO. CNC DAC 645 E| ||37, (CSO 16/2020). DTD. 25.6.2020.| |Exhibit P8|A TRUE COPY OF INQUIRING PROCEEDINGS DTD.| ||29.07.2020.| |Exhibit P9|A TRUE COPY OF INQUIRING PROCEEDINGS DTD.| ||7.8.2020| |Exhibit P10|A TRUE COPY OF INQUIRING PROCEEDINGS DTD.| ||12.8..2020.| |Exhibit P11|A TRUE COPY OF INQUIRING PROCEEDINGS DTD.| ||13.8.2020.| |Exhibit P12|A TRUE COPY OF INQUIRING PROCEEDINGS DTD.| ||14.08.2020.| |Exhibit P13|A TRUE COPY OF INQUIRING PROCEEDINGS DTD.| _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 12 17.8.2020. |Exhibit P14|A TRUE COPY OF PRESENTING OFFICER SUBMISSION DTD.| |---|---| ||28.8.2020.| |Exhibit P15|A TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER SUBMISSION ON THE| ||PRESENTING OFFICERS SUBMISSION DTD. 15.09.2020.| |Exhibit P16|A TRUE COPY OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY GVE ONLY 3| ||DAYS TO PREPARE THE DEFENCE DATED. 24.09.2020.| |Exhibit P17|A TRUE COPY OF INQUIRY OFFICER REPORT SUBMISSION| ||BASED ON INQUIRY AUTHORITY REPORT DATED.| ||23.09.2020.| |Exhibit P18|A TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER SUBMISSION BASED ON| ||INQUIRY AUTHORITY REPORT. DTD. 28.9.2020.| |Exhibit P19|A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||TO APPELLATE AUTHORITY DTD. 11.11.2020.| |Exhibit P20|A TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY REJECTION| ||ORDER DTD. 08.02.2021.,| |Exhibit P21|A TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE| ||THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY. DTD. 30.3.2021.| |Exhibit P22|A TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION REJECTED DTD.| ||02.08.2021.| |Exhibit P23|A TRUE COPY OF THE HAND BOOK FOR INQUIRY OFFICERS| ||AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES 2013 ISSUED BY DOPT.| ||DTD. 25.09.2013.| |Exhibit P24|A TRUE COPY OF SUPPLY OF COPIES OF DOCUMENTS TO| ||THE DELINQUENT OFFICIAL DTD. 25.08.1961.| |Exhibit P25|A TRUE COPY OF THE SUPREME COURT THE CE OF MAHAVI| ||PRASAD VS. STATE OF U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1302).| |Exhibit P26|A TRUE COPY OF RECRUITMENT POLICY OF UNION BANK| ||OF INDIA DTD. 22.02.2005.| |Exhibit P27|A TRUE COPY OF DOPT GUIDELINES ILL WILL ACTION| _**WP(C).28162/21**_ 13 06.10.1993. |Exhibit P28|A TRUE COPY OF DFS GUIDELINES REGARDING FEMALE| |---|---| ||EMPLOYEES POSTING DTD 8.8.2014.| |Exhibit P29|A TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION BY JOJI DTD.| ||30.11.2019.| |Exhibit P30|A TRUE COPY OF DIRECTION FROM MANAGER TO SOMIYA| ||TO PAY THE FURNITURE SCHEME BALANCE AMOUNT DTD.| ||24.07.2020.| |Exhibit P31|A TRUE COPY OF GM ANNOUNCED THE CEASED EMPLOYEES| ||TO CLOSE FURNITURE SCHEME DTD. 20.07.2020.| |Exhibit P32|A TRUE COPY OF GODWIN THOMAS, LETTER ON NON| ||AVAILABILITY OF SLIPS. DTD. 16.11.2019.| |Exhibit P33|A TRUE COPY OF CVC GUIDELINES, REGARDING SPEAKING| ||ORDER. DTD. 15.1.2009.| |Exhibit P34|A TRUE COPY OF S.G. NAYAK AND ANR. VS CANARA| ||BANJK AND ANR. DTD. 3.12.2004.| |Exhibit P35|A TRUE COPY OF UNION OF INDIA V.K. DHAWAN (1193)| ||2 SCC 56). DTD. 1993.| |Exhibit P36|A TRUE COPY OF GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM AT| ||TWO LEVEL. DTD. 13.01.2015.| |Exhibit P37|A TRUE COPY OF VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION REPORT| ||SUBMITTED BY SHRI.K. KAMAL, DTD. 28.11.2019.| |Exhibit P38|A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM DGM ZIC| ||TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, AUDIT AND INSPECTION. DTD| ||21.11.2019.|