05.07.2012.
None for the parties.
Challenging the order-dated 9.12.2002 – Annexure P/12 passed by the Director Works – respondent No.2 from New Delhi, terminating the services of the petitioner, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents to the effect that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
It is pointed out by the respondents that even though petitioner was initially appointed in the State of Madhya Pradesh, but he was transferred from Madhya Pradesh in the year 1999.
At the relevant point of time he was working at Bhopal, from where he was transferred as a Junior Engineer to Mizoram, in the year 1999.
While working at Mizoram as Junior Engineer, it is stated that the petitioner was given the responsibility of supervising certain construction of road for Veterinary College and AH College Campus at Selesih, Aizwal, in the State of Mizoram and in the discharge of duties in the State of Mizoram as certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner, a charge- sheet was issued to him by the competent disciplinary authority; a departmental inquiry was conducted and finally petitioner’s services were terminated.
It is stated that the entire action for terminating the petitioner, including the departmental inquiry, was conducted in the State of Mizoram and merely because 2 the impugned order of termination – Annexure P/12 issued from New Delhi was served on the petitioner’s residence at Bhopal, this Court will not get jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
It is stated that the act of misconduct alleged against the petitioner took place in the State of Mizoram, the entire departmental inquiry was conducted in the State of Mizoram, petitioner’s services were terminated by the disciplinary authority stationed at New Delhi and, therefore, petition before this Court only on the ground that petitioner is a resident of Bhopal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised is that petition at Jabalpur at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable.
After going through the records, I am of the considered view that no cause of action for adjudication of this dispute arises in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The petitioner may have worked in Madhya Pradesh upto 1999, but in the year 1999 he was transferred from Madhya Pradesh to Mizoram and while discharging his duties at Mizoram in the year 2000-2001 the acts of commission and omission of the petitioner were treated as misconduct and, therefore, a departmental inquiry was conducted while petitioner was posted at Mizoram and the disciplinary authority – respondent No.2, issued the order of termination from New Delhi.
Merely because at the relevant time petitioner was staying in Bhopal, this Court will not get any jurisdiction to deal with the matter 3 as the acts of the petitioner pertaining to the present dispute neither wholly or in part arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, finding the preliminary objection raised by the respondents to be sustainable, the same is allowed.
The petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to file the petition in a Court with jurisdiction.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-