Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps and at the relevant moment of time, was posted at Jodhpur where he was prosecuted and tried for accepting illegal gratification from one Karan Singh. The petitioner was tried by a summary Court Martial between the period 1.8.1998 to 5.8.1998, whereupon, he was found guilty and a punishment of rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service was awarded, The petitioner thereafter, filed a petition under Section 164[2] of the Army Act 1950, which was rejected by an order dated 27.1.2000 passed by the Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs : [I] to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in Colour Service till he completed his minimum pensionable service ; [II] to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari summoning the records of his Summary Court Martial proceedings including all its connected documents and total result of the SCM proceedings, including the rejection order by the respondent No. 1 dated 27.1.2000 and quash the same with all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition, inasmuch as no cause of action arose in the State of U.P. and therefore, "no writ could be issued by this Court. It was contended that the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur, the incident occurred at Jodhpur and that the Court Martial proceedings were also conducted at Jodhpur and that the order of dismissal and punishment of rigorous imprisonment was passed at Jodhpur and that the copy of the order of dismissal as well as the entire proceedings of the Summary Court Martial were served upon the petitioner at Jodhpur and therefore, no cause of action or part of cause of action arose in the state of U.P.
(3.) Heard Colonel Ashok Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kamlesh Narain Pandey, the learned Counsel for the respondents.;