- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Vikram Nath learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the respondents. In this petition prayer has been made for quashing the orders dated 3-6-1999, November 1992 and 4-1- 1992 passed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Annexures-8, 10 and 12 to the writ petition) and for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits of pay, allowances, seniority, promotion etc.
(2.) WITH the consent of the parties the present writ petition is disposed of finally at this stage in view of Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition according to the petitioner are that he was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF ). After successfully completing the training he was posted in the 68th Battalion. , C. R. P. F. on 30-9-1983 and he was sent on deputation to the 7th Battalion of Delhi Armed Police, Delhi where he joined on 26-9-1988. The petitioner was also repatriated to his Parent department in 68th Battalion C. R. P. F. , however the repatriation order was not served upon the petitioner as he had fallen sick and he was admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (A. I. I. M. S.) New Delhi for treatment. The Deputy Commissioner of 7th Battalion Delhi Armed Police issued absentee notice on 28-6-1990 to the petitioner at his Ballia address through Superintendent of Police, Ballia requiring the petitioner to report on duty. Since the petitioner was ailing and after fully recovering from the illness he reported for duly on 26-2-1991. The Delhi Armed Police instead of immediately relieving the petitioner pursuant to the repatriation order dated 15-6- 1990, allowed him to join without intimating him of the repatriation order dated 15-6-1990. The Deputy Commissioner, 7th Battalion, Delhi Armed Police passed an order on 5-3-1991 to hold departmental inquiry with regard to the absence of the petitioner and for that purpose Inspector Hari Bhushan was appointed as Inquiry Officer. After him Shri Sube Singh, Inspector was assigned the work of Inquiry Officer, who submitted report on 7-6-1991 whereby the petitioner was held guilty of unauthorised absence. The Deputy Commissioner, Delhi Armed Police passed an order on 12-6-1991 repatriating the petitioner to the parent department in sequence of his earlier order dated 15-6-1990 where the petitioner joined on 15-6-1991. However, the petitioner was issued show cause notice on 27-10-1991 in respect of the inquiry report above mentioned and in sequence to it the Commandant 68th Battalion C. R. P. F. passed an order on 4-1-1992 under Section 27a-1 of the C. R. P. F. Rules, 1965 (in short called 'rules, 1965' hereinafter) dismissing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under the service rules in November, 1992 was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C. R. P. F. , Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. However the Inspector General of Police, C. R. P. F. , New Delhi dismissed the revision of the petitioner on 3-6-1999. According to the petitioner since he was dismissed from service while posted at Jalandhar, Punjab, the appeal was dismissed by the D. I. G. , C. R. P. F. , Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat and the revision was decided by Inspector General of Police, C. R. P. F. , Lodi Complex, Lodi Road, Delhi, in these circumstances, the order passed by appellate authority and revisional authority were served to the petitioner at his permanent place of residence i. e. district Ballia which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court and since the appellate and revisional order was only meaningful and affective order, the cause of action has arisen between the territory of this Court and the writ petition could be heard by this Court in reference to the Judgment of this Court (D. B.) 2003 (Vol. 52) Allahabad Law Reports Page 92, Saroj Mahanta v. Union of India (paragraphs 32,33,34 and 35 ). The relevant paragraphs of Saroj Mahanta (Supra) are quoted as below: "32. In Umasankar Chatterjee v. Union of India, 1982 Lab IC 1361, the Calcutta High Court examined case where the services of an employee of Union of India were terminated and the order of removal was served on the petitioner at Calcutta. As the principle is well settled that an order of termination or removal becomes effective only on communication of the order, on the question of jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to entertain the petition under Article 226, the Court held as under :- ". . . . . . . So long as the order was not effective there was no question of accrual of a cause of action or the right to sue. But the moment it became effective there was such accrual of cause of action or the right to sue. The impugned order of removal having become effective in Calcutta when it was received by the petitioner, apart of the cause of action must be held to have arisen in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the Court. " 33. Gujarat High Court in a similar case in MFI (India) Ltd. Ahmedabad v. M. D. Juverkar, 1989 Lab IC 224, held as under :- "passing of a dismissal order is not enough, it cannot become effective unless it is published and communicated to the concerned employee. If an order of dismissal remains on the file of the authority passing it, it would not have effect unless the concerned employee is informed about the same and told not to report to work. One of the essentials of an effective dismissal order is communication thereof to the concerned employee and this constitutes an important link in the chain of events constituting the cause of action. " 34. In a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Mohan Singh and others v. Union of India and another, 2001 Lab IC 562, examined a case where the order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner therein for pension, passed in Allahabad was communicated to him in Rajasthan. The Court held that the Rajasthan High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of a retired army personnel for the reason that pension was receivable in Rajasthan. Therefore, the cause of action had partly arisen within the jurisdiction of the said Court. 35. In Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff and another, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1275, the Supreme Court examined a case wherein petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing the communication sent to his wife stating that the petitioner had been tried at a summary Court martial and had been found guilty of using criminal force against his superior officer and had been dismissed from service. This Court dismissed the writ petition observing that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Supreme Court set aside that order and remanded the case to be heard on merit, observing as under :- "the writ petition was filed in 1992. The impugned order was passed in 1999. This is a fact that the High Court should have taken into consideration. More importantly, it should have taken into consideration fact that the Chief of Army Staff may be sued anywhere in the country. Placing reliance only on the cause of action, as the High Court did was not justified. "
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the writ petition is maintainable before this pout and the same is to be adjudicated and decided by this Court for the reason on that the Union of India and the Inspector General of Police, C. R. P. F. , being a national body would be sued any where in the country in reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in 2001 (Vol 9) Supreme Court Cases 525 Dinesh Chandra Gahotri v. Chief of the Army Staff and another, as well as the decision of this Court (D. B.) 2002 (1) LBESR 37 (All) : 2002 (Vol 1) U. P. L. B. E. C. Page 468, Kailash Nath Tiwari v. Union of India. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner and earlier approached this Court in the year 1993 by preferring the writ petition which was dismissed on the ground that fresh cause of action had therefore, the petitioner may file a fresh petition. It has also been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the Sri Vikram Nath that parent department of the petitioner is tent to hold an inquiry as the procedure laid down under the two different acts i. e. Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The petitioner had been sent on deputation to the Delhi Armed Police for a short period in 1988. According to the petitioner he was a permanent employee of C. R. P. F. whose services were governed by the C. R. P. F. Act, 1949 and C. R. P. F. Rules, 1955 as the petitioner was on deputation to the Delhi Armed Police for a short period in 1988, thereafter he was repatriated to his parent department vide order dated 15-6-1990 as such Delhi Armed Police had no control over the petitioner. According to the petitioner even otherwise in case the petitioner was continuing with the Delhi Armed Police on deputation any act of misconduct etc. could have been tried under the C. R. P. F. Act and the Rules framed there under. According to the petitioner the respondents Delhi Armed Police illegally and without jurisdiction initiated the Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner even though the petitioner had been repatriated on 15-6-1990 as such the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Delhi Armed Police was without jurisdiction as Delhi Police Act, 1978 does not provide any procedure for conduct of disciplinary proceedings, except as laid down in Section 22 of the said Act which provides procedure for awarding punishment of the Act.;