Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force in 1997. While he was posted in Gandhi Nagar, State of Gujarat, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and by the order dated 31st August, 2009 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range, Gandhi Nagar, the petitioner was compulsory retired from service with effect from the date of service of the order upon him. It was further provided that the petitioner could file an Appeal against the said order before the Inspector General of Police, Western Sector, CRPF, Navi Mumbai and thereafter a revision petition before the Director General, CRPF, New Delhi. The petitioner preferred an Appeal which was rejected by the order dated 12th December, 2009 by the Inspector General of Police, Western Sector, CRPF, Navi Mumbai. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Revision which was also dismissed by the order dated 20th May, 2019 passed by the Director General, CRPF, New Delhi. These three orders passed in Gujarat, Mumbai and Delhi have been impugned in the present petition.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri K.C. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition as cause of action or even part of cause of action has not been arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 1 UPLBEC 108 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Deeptiman Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2010 (4) ADJ 148. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that since the Appeal was sent by the petitioner to the Inspector General of Police, Western Sector, CRPF, Navi Mumbai, by registered post from Allahabad and the order dated 12th December, 2009 passed in the appeal was received by the petitioner at Aligarh and likewise, the Revision also sent to the Director General, CRPF, New Delhi by registered post from Allahabad and the order rejecting the revision was received by the petitioner at Aligarh, this Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Phool Singh Chauhan v. Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi and Ors., 2008 (1) ESC 423 and Vinod Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and Ors., (2009) 1 UPLBEC 200.
(3.) I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.;