- (1.) HEARD Shri B. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri A. K. Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri S. A. M. Firdausi, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government.
(2.) THE appellant seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15-2-2007 whereby he has dismissed the petition filed by him. The petition sought to challenge the validity of the notice dated 13-10-2006 and the order of termination dated 11-11-2006 issued to the petitioner by the Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force, Bangalore. The appellant is resident of Varanasi. He joined at Bangalore on 16-5-2006 for a training in the Central Reserve Police Force. He did not complete the training and he fell sick. He went on leave and again he fell sick in August 2006. It was stated that he was suffering from mental illness inasmuch he could not complete the training. The authorities issued a notice on 13-10-2006 that in pursuance to Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 16 (a) of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, the services of the appellant will stand terminated on the expiry of period of one month. The appellant was supposed to serve the Central Reserve Police Force for three years in the event he had completed his training and in that sense his service was a temporary service. Subsequently, the termination order was served on the appellant dated 11-11-2006 which recorded that he was served with a notice on 13-10-2006 and that his name was being struck of. The learned Single Judge held that the petition was not maintainable in this High Court and that merely because the appellant was resident of Varanasi which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, does not confer the territorial jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. , 2004 (4) ESC 2313 (FB ). In that matter also a similar contention was sought to be raised. That misconduct was committed at Calcutta and the petitioner was proceeded in a Court Martial at Calcutta. He sought to file the petition at Allahabad on the basis of his residence which was turned down by the Full Bench after referring to number of judgments.
(3.) MR. Singh learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 1313. In the aforesaid case the Apex Court held that an order of dismissal which is kept on the file without communicating does not take effect from the date on which the order is actually written down by the authority concerned. There cannot be any two views on that. In this case, we are concerned with the territorial jurisdiction and in our view the learned Single Judge was right. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .;