Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - (1.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents relating to maintainability of the writ petition in terms of the Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The respondents state that the charge sheet issued to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 20th December, 2016 was issued from the office of National Council of Teachers Education, New Delhi. The petitioner at the time of issuing charge sheet was holding the post of Deputy Secretary of NCTE, Hans Bhawan New Delhi. The contents of the charge sheet relate to submission of false and fraudulent claim of past service as Principal by the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court does not lie to examine the said memorandum issued by the Chair person, NCTE at New Delhi.
(2.) Learned Sr. Counsel submits that law relating to territorial jurisdiction has been settled in the case of State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. M/s Swaika Properties and Anr, 1985 3 SCC 217, which reads as under: "7. Upon these facts , we are satisfied that the cause of action neither wholly nor in part arose within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court and therefore the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to issue a rule nisi on the petition filed by the respondents under Art. 226of the Constitution or to make the ad-interim exparte prohibitory order restraining the appellants from taking any steps to take possession of the land acquired. Under sub-s. (5) of s. 52 of the Act the appellants were entitled to require the respondents to surrender or deliver possession of the lands acquired forthwith and upon their failure to do so , take immediate steps to secure such possession under sub-s. (6) thereof. 8. The expression 'cause of action' is tersely defined in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure: "The 'cause of action' means every fact which , if traversed , it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court." In other words , it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. The mere service of notice under s. 52(2) of the Act on the respondents at their registered office at 18-B , Brabourne Road , Calcutta i.e. within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal , could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action. The entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under s. 52(1) of the Act arose within the State of Rajasthan i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench. The answer to the question whether service of notice is an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Art. 226(2) of the Constitution must depend upon the nature of the impugned order giving rise to a cause of action. The notification dated February 8 , 1984 issued by the State Government under s. 52(1) of the Act became effective the moment it was published in the official Gazette as thereupon the notified land became vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It was not necessary for the respondents to plead the service of notice on them by the Special Officer , Town Planning Department , Jaipur under s. 52(2) for the grant of an appropriate writ , direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification issued by the State Government under s. 52(1) of the Act. If the respondents felt aggrieved by the acquisition of their lands situate at Jaipur and wanted to challenge the validity of the notification issued by the State Government of Rajasthan under s. 52(1) of the Act by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution , the remedy of the respondents of the grant of such relief had to be sought by filing such a petition before the Rajasthan High Court , Jaipur Bench , where the cause of action wholly or in part arose."
(3.) He relies on judgment passed in Kusam Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Another, 2004 6 SCC 254, wherein the Court observed as under: "6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitutes the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. 7. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads thus: "(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the court. 22. The court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act. 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. " The same view was expressed in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others Vs. Kalyan Banerjee, 2008 3 SCC 456.;