IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.163 of 2004 (S/B) Harishwar Dayal ……..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ….Respondents Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/ respondents. Dated: 29th August, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) MCC No.1077 of 2010 (Misc. Application) The reason for dismissal of the Writ Petition for default, was engagement of the learned counsel for the petitioner in some other Court. That being no ground, there is no ground for restoration. However, keeping in view that for the default on the part of the counsel, a litigant will not suffer, we allow the application for restoration on condition that the counsel for the petitioner shall deposit cost of ` 500/- within a period of one month from today with the Legal Services Committee, High Court. 2. By consent of the parties, we heard the Writ Petition on its merit. 3. On 23rd July, 1996, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, when he was also served with an order 2 whereby it was indicated that under Rule 18 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 proceedings have been initiated under Rule 16 thereof against three persons, including the petitioner. In the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, it was indicated, amongst others, that he made unwise purchases on behalf of the employer and as a result, money belonging to the employer was held up for a considerable period of time without its utilization. In 1996, the said charge sheet was issued from New Delhi and served upon the petitioner at Jalandhar, where he was then working. The actions complained of in the charge sheet were actions of the petitioner carried out in course of serving the employer at Hyderabad. Petitioner gave a representation to the said charge sheet, whereupon by an order dated 8th May, 2000, petitioner’s representation was rejected and a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for two years, without cumulative effect, was imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The said order was passed from New Delhi and served upon the petitioner at Nagpur, where he was then serving on transfer. Petitioner, as entitled to made a representation, and the said representation was also rejected by an order dated 10th August, 2001, which was issued from New Delhi and served upon the petitioner at Nagpur. The orders dated 8th May, 2000 and 10th August, 2001 were assailed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Branch, Camp at Nagpur. The Tribunal has not interfered with the matter and has rejected the contentions of the petitioner, as were put forward by him before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed in this Court on the ground that before the Tribunal passed the order, petitioner was once again transferred to Pithoragarh, situate within the jurisdiction of this Court. None of the respondents, arrayed as parties to the Writ Petition, is within the jurisdiction of this Court. There is no pleading that any part of the cause of action of the petitioner arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the effect of the impugned order dated 8th May, 2000 was suffered by the petitioner, while he was serving within the jurisdiction of this Court. In the circumstances, filing of the Writ Petition in this Court, was thoroughly misconceived. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. ( V.K. Bist , J.) ( Bar in Gh osh , C.J.) 29.08.2011 29.08.2011 Arpan