LPA No. 128 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 128 of 2011 (O&M)) Date of decision 12.8.2011 M.M. Thapar . Appellant Versus Union of India and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta Advocate for the appellant Mr. Gurmail Singh Duhan, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondent no.4. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 13.12.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy raised in the writ petition relatable to instant appeal. For the view taken by the learned Single Judge, reliance has been placed on a judgement of this Court rendered in the case of CT Sanjay Singh v. Union of India and others (CWP No. 13728 of 2010 decided on 20,8.2010). In Sanjay Singh's case (supra) reliance was placed on the judgements in the cases of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India and another AIR 1961 SC 532 and a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Harvinder Singh v. Food Corporation of India 2003(2) SCT 706. The learned Single Judge has also decided the controversy on merits and concluded that a fair procedure was adopted and no prejudice has been LPA No. 128 of 2011 (O&M) 2 caused to the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The appellant joined the Central Industrial Security Force with 1st batch of officers in the year 1970. At the relevant time he was posted at Bokaro Steel Plant in June, 1994. Respondent no.3 who is alleged to be his junior also came to be posted at Bokaro Steel Plant. However, he started discharging duties of his superiors by assuming the charge of Commandant (Administration). At that time the appellant was working as Commandant (Plant). There were allegations levelled against him that a truck carrying some plant material was found at the gate without any documents which were sought to be mis- appropriated by the appellant. The enquiry was conducted wherein the appellant was found guilty which eventually resulted in passing the order on 29.1.1999 (P.1) dismissing him from service. The aforesaid order was passed by the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi. The same has been challenged in the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal. 3. Mr. Parveen Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error in law by recording a contradictory finding. According to the learned counsel once the preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction has been sustained, there is no reason for assuming of jurisdiction and recording the finding on merit. According to the learned counsel it is not possible for the appellant to challenge the order of dismissal before the Court of competent jurisdiction once the findings have been recorded on merits nor he could challenge the judgement on merits once the findings have been recorded that this Court has no jurisdiction. LPA No. 128 of 2011 (O&M) 3 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, have argued that this Court would not enjoy any territorial jurisdiction over the appellant and the learned Single Judge as a matter of abundant caution has recorded the aforesaid finding on merits. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the provisions of Article 226(2) of the Constitution we are of the considered view that merely posting of order of dismissal and delivery of the same to the petitioner who lives within the jurisdiction of this Court would not give rise to a cause of action. The entire bundle of facts pleaded did not constitute cause of action as all material facts are necessary to be proved before the petitioner could succeed in obtaining a decree in his favour. The significant expression is ' material fact'. The aforesaid question came up for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd v. Union of India and another AIR 2004 SC 2321(1). After referring to Sections 20(c) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 226 (2) of the Constitution their Lordships reached the conclusion that the doctrine of forum conveniens may be invoked even in a case where fraction of cause of action might have arisen with in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The following relevant observations made in para 30 would be sufficient for deciding the controversy which reads as under: “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 LPA No. 128 of 2011 (O&M) 4 to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (under lining in original) 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid dicta of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, we set aside the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on merits of the controversy upholding the impugned order of dismissal and sustain the preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly the appellant is relegated to his remedy before the Court which has territorial jurisdiction in respect of the impugned order. 7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 12 .8.2011 Judge okg