- (1.)BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge his discharge from the Armed Forces on the ground that firstly he was wrongly retired, and secondly no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner before the discharge order was issued.
(2.)THE details of the facts at this juncture are not necessary barring few facts. Undisputedly the discharge order was issued from Secumderabad and was ultimately served upon the petitioner who was serving at Pathankot. According to the petitioner, his wife had made a statutory complaint/appeal against unceremonious discharge of the petitioner and the petitioner also made a statutory appeal to the authorities, but his appeal has yet not been considered; while the appeal sent by his wife was rejected, and the order dismissing the appeal filed by wife was conveyed to him at Jabalpur. The petitioner says and submits that during his service tenure on two occasions he was posted at Jabalpur and when he was indisposed of, he was treated at Jabalpur, and as he is a permanent resident of Jabalpur, this Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition.
(3.)ON the other hand, the respondents have submitted that no part of cause of action ever accrued in Madhya Pradesh. According to them, the order was issued from Secunderabad and was executed at Pathankot (Punjab); simple communication relating to the dismissal of the statutory appeal would not confer any jurisdiction on this Court because information relating to the decision on an appeal would not be an integral part of the cause of action. It is further submitted by them that residence of the petitioner would not clothe this Court with the jurisdiction so also the earlier postings of the petitioner or his treatments at Jabalpur would also not confer any jurisdiction on this Court.