IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10058 of 2011 Loknath Singh son of Late Vikram Singh resident of Vill. Dularpur, P.O.Dularpur, P.S. Garahani, Dist. Bhojpur. ---Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Union of India through the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, C.R.P.F., CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Inspector General ( Pers & Commu), CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 4. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Signal Range 5. The Commandant-3 Signal BN, CRPF, Sector-V, Salt Lake Kolkata. 6. The Commandant-43 BN, CRPF, CG Bhuvneshwar, Orisa. 7. The D.I.G. CRPF, CG, Bhuvneshwar, Orisa. ---Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Raghib Ahsan A.S.G. ----------- 02 05.07.2011 Petitioner questions legality of order dated 22.11.2010, passed by respondent Commandant, 3-Signal Battalion, CRPF, Kolkata (Annexure- 4) whereby pursuant to a departmental proceeding levied against him punishment of dismissal from service was afflicted on him. He also questions the sustainability of the appellate order as well as the revisional order as contained in Annexures 5/1 and 6/1 passed by respondent nos. 4 and 3 respectively. A brief history of the case needs to be delineated. An advertisement was published by the authorities of Central Reserve Police Force (for short „CRPF”) at Bhuvneshwar for recruitment of constable(s) in 43-Battalion of CRPF. Petitioner finding himself 2 eligible applied and participated in the selection process recruitment rally conducted in Bhuvneshwar on 04.03.1994. On being selected in the physical test, he was required to submit his certificates for verification of his eligibility to the post in question and sign relevant documents. Accordingly, as per the petitioner, all documents relating to his educational qualifications and caste status/certificate was/ were furnished. Petitioner thereafter was allowed to join the training camp and after completion thereof he was allowed to work as constable in 43-Battalion in Bhuvneshwar. On 17.05.2006, he was shifted/transferred from 43- Battalion to 3-Signal Battalion, Kolkata. On 30.05.2006, his service book was received in the office of 3- signal battalion where he had reported on 17.05.2006. It is to be recorded here that serious discrepancy was found as about his caste/category to which he belonged. A departmental proceeding was levied against him in which articles of charges were framed and served by the authority of 3-signal battalion (Annexure-3). Two specific charges were framed against the petitioner as would appear from Annexure-3. Petitioner participated in the said enquiry. On conclusion whereof, enquiry report was submitted in which the charges were found to have been proved. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed and served on the petitioner at the place where he was functioning prior to initiation of the proceeding. Aggrieved thereby he filed appeal which was considered and dismissed intimation whereof was sent to his village address falling in the District of Bhojpur (Bihar). Revision filed thereagainst under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rule was also considered and rejected by order dated 09th May, 2011 (Annexure-6/1). It appears from 3 the pleadings on record that the advertisement was issued and circulated in the State of Orissa. Petitioner participated in the recruitment process which was/were conducted in Bhuvneshwar. The departmental proceeding was levied by authorities of the 3- Signal battalion in Kolkata. The order of dismissal was passed and served on the petitioner in Kolkata. It, thus, appears that cause of action arose beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Submission of the petitioner is that the appellate and revisional orders were served on him at his village in the District of Bhojpur and as such petitioner can legally maintain the present writ proceeding in this Court. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad vs. The Union of India & Ors. since reported in 2003(2) PLJR 151. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the integral part of cause of action arose outside State of Bihar, and as such, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable in this Court. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Alchemist Limited and Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1812. Before considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court deems it apposite to extract the relevant article of the Constitution of India after its amendment. Relevant part of Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs- (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises 4 jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including [ writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for any other purpose.] (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.] 3. xxxxxxx 4. xxxxxxx” Petitioner has relied on Rameshwar Prasad (supra) to submit that writ petition before this Court would be maintainable. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad (supra) the petitioner was serving in Jammu and Kashmir where proceeding was levied against him on the ground of his unauthorized stay/leave. The petitioner was served the order passed by the disciplinary authority at his village home in the State of Bihar. There was nothing on record to show that said order was served and/or made known to the petitioner in Jammu and Kashmir. In the setting of those facts this Hon‟ble Court found as under in para 7:- “7. The law is well settled that so far the order of dismissal is concerned that becomes effective only when it is communicated or made known to the person concerned. There is no averment in the written statement that the order of dismissal was communicated or served personally to the appellant at Sri-Nagar or it was made known to him at that place. The fact is that it was sent from that place through post to him and was served upon him at his village home. It does not mean that the order of dismissal was brought to his knowledge at his place of posting at Sri-Nagar. As the order of dismissal 5 was sent to the appellant-writ petitioner at his village home and received by him there, the order became known to him at his village home situate in the State of Bihar, and as such this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.” In the present case, it appears from the order passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure-4) that the order was passed and served on the petitioner (OC HQr/3 Signal Battalion) in Kolkata. There is no assertion in the writ petition that the said order was served on the petitioner at his village home in the State of Bihar. The ratio laid down in Rameshwar Prasad (supra), therefore, does not support the contention of the petitioner. In Alchemist Limited (supra) the Apex Court considered catena of decisions and held that all necessary facts would form „integral part‟ of the cause of action. The fact which is neither material nor essential nor integral part of the cause of action would not constitute a part of cause of action within the meaning of Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The apex Court observed as under in para 41:- “41. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner- appellant, 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. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a „part of cause of action‟, nothing less than that.” 6 As per pleadings in the writ petition, the selection process was taken up outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The proceeding was levied, continued and concluded outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The order dismissing him from service was passed and made known/served on the petitioner in Kolkata. The authorities who considered his appeal and revision have offices outside the State of Bihar. Merely intimation of disposal of the appeal/revision to the petitioner while staying within the territorial jurisdiction of the State, in my view, would not constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action conferring jurisdiction to this Court to issue direction(s) and command the respondents none of whom admittedly reside and exercise their jurisdiction within the State of Bihar. Intimation of disposal of appeal or revision, in my view, have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case. They are, therefore, not integral part of the cause of action. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the present writ petition seeking relief, as noticed in paragraph no. 1 hereinabove, in this Court, would not be maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction as enshrined under Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )