M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 13.12.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy raised in the writ petition relatable to instant appeal. For the view taken by the learned Single Judge, reliance has been placed on a judgement of this Court rendered in the case of CT Sanjay Singh v. Union of India and others (CWP No. 13728 of 2010 decided on 20.8.2010 ). In Sanjay Singh's case (supra) reliance was placed on the judgements in the cases of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India and another AIR 1961 SC 532 and a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Harvinder Singh v. Food Corporation of India 2003(2) SCT 706 . The learned Single Judge has also decided the controversy on merits and concluded that a fair procedure was adopted and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant.
(2.) Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The appellant joined the Central Industrial Security Force with 1st batch of officers in the year 1970. At the relevant time he was posted at Bokaro Steel Plant in June, 1994. Respondent no.3 who is alleged to be his junior also came to be posted at Bokaro Steel Plant. However, he started discharging duties of his superiors by assuming the charge of Commandant (Administration). At that time the appellant was working as Commandant (Plant). There were allegations levelled against him that a truck carrying some plant material was found at the gate without any documents which were sought to be misappropriated by the appellant. The enquiry was conducted wherein the appellant was found guilty which eventually resulted in passing the order on 29.1.1999 (P.1) dismissing him from service. The aforesaid order was passed by the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi. The same has been challenged in the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal.
(3.) Mr. Parveen Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error in law by recording a contradictory finding. According to the learned counsel once the preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction has been sustained, there is no reason for assuming of jurisdiction and recording the finding on merit. According to the learned counsel it is not possible for the appellant to challenge the order of dismissal before the Court of competent jurisdiction once the findings have been recorded on merits nor he could challenge the judgement on merits once the findings have been recorded that this Court has no jurisdiction.;