IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3187 (S/S) of 2001 Prem Singh S/o Sri Harak Singh Bisht, R/o Village Bhoor Maholia, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. ………………………… Petitioner Versus (1) Union of India through the Defence Secretary. (2) Commanding Officer, Kumaon Regiment. …………………… Respondents. Sri B.S. Khanka, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for the Respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.06.1998 (copy Annexure 1 to the writ petition), whereby petitioner has been discharged from Indian Army. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. (3) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was recruited as a Soldier from Army Recruitment Cetre, Lucknow (U.P.). Thereafter, he was sent to Jammu & Kashmir Rifles Regimental Centre, Jabalpur (M.P.). Petitioner’s case is that he was found fit at the time of recruitment and completed the training and the medical tests. He was given Army No. 13762254. However, the petitioner was discharged vide order dated 08.06.1998 (a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition) under Army Rule 13, sub-rule(3), Item IV, on his request. The petitioner has alleged that respondents made pressure on him to sign certain papers and he did know the contents of the paper as such his discharge from the Indian Army is illegal. He served a notice on the respondents and thereafter filed this writ petition. (4) In reply to the petition, filed by the petitioner, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as no part of cause of action has arisen within the State of Uttarakhand. Apart from this, it is denied by the respondents that the petitioner was pressurized to get discharged from the Indian Army. Rather it is mentioned that petitioner could not complete the training test and was not efficient to become the disciplined soldier as such he sought discharge. (5) Admittedly, the petitioner was recruited through the Recruitment Centre at Lucknow and joined the Jammu & Kashmir rifles of Indian Army. It is also admitted that he was discharged from Jabalpur (M.P.), as such no part of cause of action has arisen within the State of Uttarakhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is resident of State of Uttarakhand and as such this writ petition is maintainable before this Court. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on the ground that petitioner resides in State of Uttarakhand, part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori Vs. Chief of Army Staff and another (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1275, in which the Apex Court held that petition against Chief of Army Staff can be maintained in any High Court. In the present case Chief of Army Staff is not a party in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Section 124 of Army Act, 1950, which provides that any person subject to the Act can be tried and punished for an offence at any place. It is not a case where the petitioner is tried for any offence, as such this Section has no application to the present case. (6) Assuming for a moment that this Court has the jurisdiction, even then the petitioner has no case on merits. The impugned discharge certificate shows that petitioner was discharged from Indian Army on his request. He has not categorically sated in the writ petition that he did not make a request to get discharged. What he has stated is this that he was not aware of which papers are being signed by him. It is alleged in the Para 6 of the writ petition that the petitioner was pressurized by the respondents to sign the papers. Said fact has been specifically denied in Para 12 of the counter affidavit. I have no reason to disbelieve what has been stated in the counter affidavit, as petitioner in writ petition does not say that he did not sign papers for discharge on his request. (7) Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that vide order dated 11.09.2006, respondents were directed to produce the record and the same has not been produced. In reply to this learned Standing Counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Court to Regulations 592 to 596 of Army Regulations, 1987, and argued that record which is not permanently required is destroyed after three years. Even if had the record been produced it could not have thrown light as to whether the petitioner was pressurized or not. (8) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 21.02.2008 NS