IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11137 of 2010 SURESH RAI, SON OF LATE BHAGWAN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GUNDI, P.S. BARHARA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL C.I.S.F., C.I.S.F. HEAD QUARTER NEW DELHI. 3. THE I.G., C.I.S.F., EASTERN SECTOR, HEAD QUARTERS, PATNA. 4. THE D.I.G., C.I.S.F., UNIT, C.C.L., KARGALI, JHARKHAND. 5. THE SENIOR COMMANDANT, C.I.S.F., UNIT, C.C.L., KARGALI, JHARKHAND. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, B & K, KSHETRA, C.I.S.F., UNIT, C.C.L. KARGALI, JHARKHAND. ----------- 02. 20.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment order dated 16.9.2009, Annexure-3, whereunder his one increment has been withheld for two years without any cumulative effect. Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority petitioner moved the Senior Commandant in appeal, which was also rejected under order dated 11.1.2009, Annexure-5. Against the appellate order petitioner filed revision before the DIG, CISF, which was rejected under order dated 27.2.2010, Annexure-7. The orders passed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authority have been challenged in the instant writ application. 3. It appears petitioner was proceeded against vide charge sheet dated 9.9.2009 Annexure-1 alleging lack of alertness on his part while he was on duty in the night shift at Kargali Exhibition Workshop, Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand causing loss of 340 liters of diesel from the vehicle parked at the place of his duty. In response - 2 - to the charge sheet petitioner filed his response dated 15.9.2009, Annexure-2 disputing the allegation that he did not perform his duty in right earnest. Aforesaid show cause was rejected by the disciplinary authority who passed punishment order dated 16.9.2009, Annexure-3, which has also been affirmed in appeal and revision. After the statutory appeal and revision filed by the petitioner was rejected he preferred mercy appeal before the I.G., CISF at Patna. The I.G., CRPF, dismissed the mercy appeal under order contained in letter dated 14.5.2010, which was communicated to the petitioner at Bokaro by the Assistant Commandant Administration, CISF Unit, Kargali under Memo No.2817 dated 22.5.2010, Annexure-9. Aforesaid communication of the order of the I.G. made by the Assistant Commandant under letter dated 22.5.2010, Annexure-9 is also impugned in the writ case and with reference to the order passed by the I.G. CISF, Patna communicated to the petitioner at Bokaro by the Assistant Commandant, Kargali, Bokaro it is submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. 4. Counsel for the Union has opposed the prayer. He states that at the relevant time petitioner was posted at Kargali, Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand and the order of the disciplinary, appellate and the revisional authority has been passed in the State of Jharkhand at Bokaro and the order of the I.G., CISF, Patna has also been communicated to the petitioner at Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand, as such, this writ application is not maintainable before this Court. It is also submitted by the counsel for the Union that mercy appeal filed - 3 - before the I.G., CISF, Patna is not in terms of the provisions of the statute, as such, the order passed by the I.G., CISF, Patna communicated to the petitioner at Kargali, Bokaro will not enable the petitioner to create jurisdiction in his favour before this Court. 5. I see substance in the submission of the counsel for the Union as at the relevant time petitioner was not only serving at Kargali, Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand but also the statutory authorities passed orders at Bokaro, Jharkhand and communicated the same to the petitioner at Kargali, Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand. In the circumstances, the order passed by the I.G., CISF, Patna but communicated to the petitioner at Kargali, Bokaro will not create jurisdiction in this Court and the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Jharkhand High Court against the orders impugned in the writ case. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)