IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1586 of 2004 (S/S) Balwant Singh Rajput S/o late Sri Ram Prasad Singh Resident of Chaman Bagh, Mohalla Bhoop Singh, Jaspur, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Director General / Chairman Ordnance Factories Board, 6, Esplanade East, Calcutta. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Tumul Nailwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Pande, Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the revision filed by him in the year 1989, by a speaking order. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, on record. 3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Viewer B, in the Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, in 1963. His services were governed under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. In 1964, he was promoted to the post of Supervisor. In 1974, he was transferred to Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Madras (now Chennai). In the year 1982, he proceeded on leave for his home town Jaspur, District Nainital (now part of District Udham Singh Nagar). The petitioner has stated that his mother died, and he could not join his duties. For remaining absent without leave, punishment was awarded to the petitioner in the year 1983, stopping one increment. In the year 1984, after a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 13.06.1984. It is stated that said order was challenged by the petitioner in the departmental appeal before Additional Director General, Ordnance Factory, Sarvodaya, Kanpur. Said authority vide its order dated 02.11.1988, dismissed the appeal. According to the petitioner, thereafter, he filed a revision before Director General / Chairman of the Ordinance Factories Board, in the year 1989. However, the revision is alleged to be 3 pending, and lying undisposed of for more than 20 years, consequently the writ petition was filed. 4) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Viewer B, in the year 1963, at Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, and thereafter transferred to Avadi (Chennai). It is stated that petitioner remained absent from duty without leave w.e.f. 01.11.1982. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that a Court of Enquiry was constituted, but the petitioner even after notices being served on him did not respond to the notices before the Enquiry Officer. Finally, the order removing him from service was passed on 13th of June 1984. According to the respondents, infact, petitioner did not prefer any appeal under C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965. He only made a complaint in November 1985, regarding misuse of power. Said complaint was examined and enquired into by Additional Director General of the Ordnance Factory (Headquarters), Kanpur, and the allegations were not found correct. It is further stated that the petitioner never made any formal revision to the competent authority i.e. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. He, while making a representation dated 04.07.1989, made allegations and derogatory remarks against his senior officers. As such, it cannot be said that any revision is pending before the authorities concerned which is required to be disposed of. It is also 4 stated in the counter affidavit that earlier the petitioner filed O.A. No. 45 of 2002, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, for similar direction, which was dismissed by said authority by a speaking order on 24.10.2002. 5) In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record it appears that no revision was made under the rules to the authority concerned. It is not shown as to under what rules a mere complaint / representation, making allegations against the senior officers is required to be disposed of by the respondents. The said complaint / representation (which is being said to be revision in the writ petition) was filed in the year 1989, and the writ petition is filed before this Court in the year 2004, with latches of more than 15 years. 7) Apart from this what is most significant in this case is that this Court does not appear to have a territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner was last posted at Chennai. The absence from duty relates to his posting at Chennai. He is said to have been removed from service when he was posted at Chennai. Merely for the reason that his hometown is Jaspur, within the territory of Uttarakhand, does not make this 5 writ petition maintainable in this Court. Article 226 of the Constitution of India, gives wide powers to the High Court to entertain the writ petition, but subject to territorial jurisdiction. No part of cause of action has been shown to have arisen within the State of Uttarakhand. 8) An Amendment Application No. 10247 of 2009, moved in the writ petition, by which relief relating to benefits of service and post retiral dues are sought to be recovered, is also misconceived and liable to be dismissed, for the reason that so long as the order of removal passed against the petitioner remains alive, no such relief can be granted, nor can be allowed to be added in the writ petition. 9) For the reasons as discussed above, the writ petition as well as the Amendment Application No. 10247 of 2009, are dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 27, 2009. H. Negi