SHRI B.C. PATOWARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The facts leading to this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, in brief, are thus. The petitioner Shri B.C. Patowary, who was L/NK in the 32 Bn CRPF, was charged with an offence punishable under section 10 (m) of the CRP F Act for absenting himself from duty for 50 days without permission. On 20.6.88, the Magistrate of the First Class (Assistant Commandant, 32 Bn CRPF) at Jalandhar City found the petitioner guilty, and thereafter the Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 30 days. Afterwards, the Commandant of the 32 Bn CRPF, under order dated 6.7.88, dismissed the petitioner from his services pursuant to the order of conviction. The order of dismissal was served on the petitioner while he was at Jalandhar. The order of dismissal was appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF at Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 10.10.88, and the order of the Appellate Authority was served on the petitioner at his home address in Assam.

(2.) The question which arises for consideration is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Under clause (2) of Art. 226 of the Constitution, a petition under Art. 226 can be presented before any High Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen. Mr. U. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the order of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of dismissal in which the original order of dismissal had been merged was received by the petitioner in Assam and, therefore, the order of dismissal became effective only when it was served on him in Assam, and as such, the cause of action partly arose in Assam within the jurisdiction of this Court. In order to support his contention, Mr. Das has referred us to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported as Uma Sankar Vs. Union of India, 1982 (II) LLJ 378 . We shall deal with the decision of the Calcutta High Court later in this judgment.

(3.) In State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 1313 , one of the questions canvassed was whether an order of dismissal can be said to be effective only from the date when it is made known or communicated to the concerned public servant. The fact of the case was that the order of dismissal was passed on 3.6.49. Though a copy of the order of dismissal was forwarded to six persons noted thereunder, no copy of the same was sent to the concerned civil servant. But he came to know of it on 28.5.51 through another officer. 28.5.51 was taken to be the date of communication. On that fact position, the Supreme Court has held that an order of dismissal passed by the appropriate authority and kept on its file wit: out communicating to the officer concerned or otherwise publishing it would not make it effective unless it is communicated to the officer concerned or is otherwise published.