Amrita Sinha, J
The petitioner is a member of the Central Reserve Police Force. He was posted in Kolkata from 1st April, 2014 to 9th February, 2016. On 18th
October, 2016 when the petitioner was posted outside West Bengal he made a representation to the Commandant of his battalion alleging non-supply
of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report form in duplicate for the period 1st April, 2014 to 2nd November, 2015 and 3rd November, 2015 to 9th
February, 2016 by the PA of the DIG (ADM) of the Central Zone Headquarters at Salt Lake, Kolkata as per the provision of paragraph 6.1(1) of
Standing Order 4 of 2015.
The Inspector General, Central Zone Headquarters, Kolkata considered the said representation and by a communication dated 11th June, 2018 passed
order that the allegations made in the representation dated 18th October, 2016 are false and the representation made to the office on 5th May, 2018
cannot be admitted being time-barred and hence rejected.
When the petitioner was posed at Jharkhand he was served with a caution letter dated 4th January, 2019. By an office order dated 22nd March, 2019
an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner for disrespectful and insulting language against his higher and
senior officials of the force. The petitioner by a letter dated 1st April, 2019 made a representation before the Deputy Inspector General of police range
Ajmer, Rajasthan praying for re-examination of the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.
By an office order dated 13th April, 2019 an enquiry officer was appointed and ordered to initiate enquiry and complete the same as early as possible.
By a letter dated 15th May, 2019 the petitioner wrote to the enquiry officer for providing the documents as mentioned in his said letter.
An article of charge was issued against the petitioner on 10th July, 2019 by the Deputy Inspector General, Ajmer range. The petitioner is aggrieved by
the issuance of the memorandum of charges against him and prays for quashing the same.
A preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the instant writ petition before the Calcutta High Court has been raised by the learned
senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. It has been submitted that the entire cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of
this High Court. The preliminary enquiry was conducted when the petitioner was posted outside West Bengal. The memorandum of charges was
served upon the petitioner when he was posted outside the jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner filed representation to the superior authority, office
of whom is located outside the jurisdiction of this court. It has been submitted that no part of the cause of action, far less, integral part of the cause of
action arose within the jurisdiction of this court.
The respondents rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs Adani Export Ltd. &
Anr. reported in (2002)1 SCC 567 and National Textile Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs Haribox Swalram & Ors. reported in (2004)9 SCC 786
paragraphs 12 and 12.1 in support of his stand.
The learned senior advocate for the petitioner opposes the submissions made on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner submits that the cause of
action for the disciplinary proceeding arose when he was posted at Kolkata. The cause of action arose when the form relating to his Annual
Performance Appraisal Report was not handed over to him in accordance with the Standing Order.
The petitioner submits that mere service of the memorandum of charges alone does not give to rise to the cause of action. The complaint which was
lodged to condemn derogatory remarks against the senior officers was written by the petitioner in respect of the period when he was posted at
Kolkata. The disciplinary proceeding is an outcome of the said letter of complaint and accordingly the Calcutta High Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition.
The learned senior advocate relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal
Kumar Basu reported in (1994)4 SCC 711 and relies upon an unreported judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this court on 10th August,
2018 in WP No. 2977 of 2017.
Since a preliminary issue has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this court I propose to decide the said issue first
before entering into the merits of the case.
It appears that the disciplinary proceeding arises out of certain remarks which were allegedly written in a complaint made by the petitioner against his
superior officers for non-supply of his Annual Performance Accredited Reports (APARs). The period of non-supply of the said APARs was 2014-16.
The petitioner was posted at Kolkata at the relevant point of time. So it can be said that at least a part of the cause of action of the instant proceeding
arose at Kolkata.
It is settled law that arising of a part of the cause of action will not ipso facto confer jurisdiction upon the court. The said should be an integral part of
the cause of action. Let me now consider whether the lodging of a complaint by the petitioner in respect of an incident which took place at Kolkata
resulting in the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding can be considered to be an integral part of the cause of action of the present proceeding.
Members of all India disciplinary forces are required to serve throughout the country. Their services are transferred at regular intervals. There may be
occasions where the cause of action arises at various locations during the service tenure of such a member. More than one court may have territorial
jurisdiction to decide the issue. In the instant case the seeds of the disciplinary proceeding were sown, by not supplying the ACARs, when the
petitioner was posed at Kolkata.
The Inspector General, Central Zone Headquarters, Kolkata considered the said letter of the petitioner and passed an order on 11th June, 2019.
According to law, the High Court within whose territory the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, can entertain the petition. It is not necessary that
the offices of the respondent authorities are to be located within the jurisdiction of the concerned court.
As held in the case of Utpal Kumar Basu (supra) the High Court can exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
directions, orders or writs for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights if the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen within its territorial
jurisdiction notwithstanding the seat of the Government or authority against whom such direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said
territories.
The expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his
favour by the court. In determining the objection of the lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of
action into consideration altogether, without embarking upon an enquiry of the correctness of the said facts. The question of territorial jurisdiction must
be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition.
In the instant case the petitioner has categorically pleaded that the entire dispute emanates from a letter which was written by him on 18th October,
2016 in respect of a dispute when he was posted at Kolkata. The representation of the petitioner was considered by the authority at Kolkata and an
order was passed on 11th June, 2018 at Kolkata. Though the petitioner was transferred after 10th January, 2016 the order was passed by the authority
at Kolkata on 11th June, 2018. Accordingly it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court.
The petitioner has categorically pleaded in paragraph 21 of the writ petition that the dispute arose due to the non-supply of the Annual Performance
Appraisal Report for the period when the petitioner was posted at Kolkata. The petitioner has averred in the said paragraph that though at the time of
holding the preliminary enquiry he was posted at Jamshedpur and the charge sheet was issued at Jamshedpur the same will not stand in the way of the
petitioner from invoking the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. Service of the charge sheet or the holding of the preliminary enquiry at
Jamshedpur will not take away the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to entertain the writ petition as the cause of action of the dispute arose
within its jurisdiction. The respondents have filed a report raising objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction of this court but the statements made
in paragraph 21 of the writ petition where the petitioner has categorically averred about the location of the cause of action have not been denied by
them.
It has already been observed earlier that in respect of service matters relating to all India service the cause of action may arise at more than one
place. The petitioner though presently posted at Ajmer and he may be transferred somewhere else during his service tenure he is entitled to file writ
petition before any court within whose territorial limits the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The petitioner has chosen the jurisdiction of the
Calcutta High Court as a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. It is true, that a part of the cause of action arose outside the
jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court but at the same time, it cannot be denied, that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this
court.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the Calcutta High Court has the jurisdiction to decide the issue in
question. The objection raised by the respondents relating to lack of jurisdiction of this court to decide the issue is rejected.
The matter is directed to appear in the list as Motion on 9th September, 2019.
Urgent certified photo copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.
