S.K. Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner was enrolled in Border Security Force as Constable (GD) on 22.06.1988. After the basic training, the petitioner was posted to 25 BN B.S.F. and permanently absorbed in BSF Academy Tekanpur Training Company on 08.07.2000. It is further stated that the petitioner was granted one day's casual leave on account of his ailment on 06.05.2001. His condition, however, became precarious and applied for extension of leave alongwith medical certificate to the respondents. It is further stated that the respondents, instead of giving sanction to the leave applied for, passed order dated 18th/19th January, 2002 by which he was dismissed from service. The period of absence of the petitioner from service was treated as 'Dies-Non'. According to the petitioner, the order of dismissal was passed on account of absence without leave, without conducting enquiry and providing an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The order of dismissal having been passed without enquiry and in violation of the provisions of the B.S.F. Act and Rules, deprived the petitioner of his valuable right of service. The petitioner further stated that the order of dismissal amounts to harsh punishment awarded to him by the respondents and does not commensurate with the act of omission and commission attributed to him for absence without leave from duty. The order impugned, having been passed without following the provisions of the B.S.F. Act and Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner further pleaded, deserves to be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated by the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir.
2. The stand of the respondents, in their reply, is that the petitioner was sanctioned leave from the B.S.F. Academy, Tekanpur, MP, which he overstayed. A Court of Inquiry, mandatorily required under Section 62 of the B.S.F. Act, was conducted at the B.S.F. Academy Tekanpur. Show-cause notice and dismissal order were also issued by the B.S.F. authorities from their Academy at Tekanpur and, thus, questioned the jurisdiction and right of the petitioner to approach this Court. Respondents further stated that despite various opportunities provided to the petitioner to rejoin his duty, he did not report back to the Academy, which compelled them to resort to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the B.S.F. Act read with Rule 22 of the B.S.F. Rules, and dismissed the petitioner administratively. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner through various communications but neither he reported on duty nor provided any information in regard to his overstay after the sanctioned leave nor replied to the show-cause notice, which persuaded the respondents to issue the order of dismissal on 18.01.2002. Respondents further denied to have received any application accompanying the medical certificate for extension of leave. In fact, the petitioner did not respond to the correspondence made by the respondents' Unit. An apprehension order was issued against the petitioner even after the completion of the enquiry but his whereabouts could not be traced out by the police and ultimately the latter intimated the respondents vide their communication dated 22.11.2001, in expressing their inability to apprehend the petitioner. According to the respondents, the dismissal order of the petitioner from service was passed on 18.01.2002 after waiting for more than 40 days for his reply to the show cause notice. It was after due observance of the procedure and legal formalities, the order of dismissal from service of petitioner was passed by the respondents. In fact, the trial of the petitioner on account of his long absence had become virtually impracticable. The competent authority in such circumstances found that the retention of the petitioner was undesirable and by the impugned order terminated his services. The respondents further stated that when action is proposed to be taken under Section 11(2) read with Rule 22 does not contemplate the recording of R.O.E. Respondents also assailed the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the petition is required to be dismissed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perused the record meticulously.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of village Sukhdevpur, District Mathura (U.P.). He was enrolled in B.S.F. as Constable (GD) and after training permanently posted at B.S.F. Academy, Tekanpur. One day's casual leave was sanctioned from the Academy at Tekanpur from where he became absent from duty and did not join the duty. The enquiry conducted was ordered at Tekanpur, when the petitioner did not respond to the correspondence of the respondents to rejoin the duty and also to find out the facts under which circumstances the petitioner remained absent after granted leave. An apprehension roll issued to apprehend the petitioner also did not serve any purpose. An apprehension party was also sent to his village with the assistance of local police but without any fruitful result. The respondents, in fact, afforded all opportunities to the petitioner to rejoin the duty before passing the order of dismissal, in invoking the provisions of Section 11(2) of the BSF Act read with Rule 22 of the BSF Rules. It is further borne out from the record that the order of termination from service of the petitioner was passed only on account of his non-reporting to duty, non-submitting of any information about his overstaying leave and non-availing of opportunity to reply to the show cause notice despite repeated communications sent to him by the respondents. In reply to the communication addressed to the Superintendent of Police, District Mathura (U.P.), it was intimated 'that the petitioner, Bachu Singh, is not residing in his village and has joined some private service in Delhi.'
5. In order to substantiate his contention that medical certificate alongwith application for extension of leave was sent to the Unit, the petitioner has not produced any record. Since the petitioner was not responding and after waiting for his reply for a long time, he was dismissed from service. His trial, in fact, had become impracticable on account of his long absence and the authorities after having satisfied that the petitioner is an absconder, found his further retention in service not desirable and passed the order of his dismissal from service.
6. Mr. Magoo, learned Sr.CGSC appearing for respondents, in his forceful submissions stated that the writ petition is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner was a resident of village Sukhdevpur, District Mathura (U.P.) and was posted at the B.S.F. Academy, Tekanpur where he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was passed at Tekanpur. According to Mr. Magoo, all the provisions of B.S.F. Act and Rules have been followed and full opportunity was afforded to the petitioner in observance of principle of natural justice.
7. Whereas, Mrs. Surinder Kour, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has migrated to Jammu for earning his livelihood and had received the order in Jammu and after receiving the said order he sent a mercy application. It is significant to point out that no record has been produced by the petitioner that he has received the order of dismissal at Jammu. The petitioner, on the other hand, admittedly belongs to District Mathura (U.P.) where all the communications were addressed by the respondents including the order of dismissal. The Apex Court in case entitled 'Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India' : [1961]2SCR828 , held that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. The jurisdiction depends upon the person or authority passing the order being within those territories. Again in case 'Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu' : (1994)4SCC711 , the Supreme Court held that under Article 226 the High Court can exercise the power to issue direction, orders or rules for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purposes, if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the 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. The Court must take all pleaded facts in support of the cause of action into consideration. In other words, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. The said view has further been reiterated by the Apex Court in another decision, namely 'Union of India and Ors. v. Adani Export Limited and Anr. : 2001(134)ELT596(SC) .
8. Examining the allegations in the writ petition, the only ground urged by the petitioner to confer jurisdiction on this Court is that he has migrated to Jammu and has received the order at Jammu. None of the pleas has been proved by the petitioner either by producing some record or document in support of his contention. Whereas, the record on the file, unambiguously, shows that the petitioner was enrolled in Tekanpur wherefrom he became absent and on account of his long absence, his services were terminated by the B.S.F. authorities after strictly observing the provisions of Section 11(2) of the B.S.F. Act read with Rule 22 of the B.S.F. Rules vide order impugned in this writ petition. The correspondence was also made on his address of the village in District Mathura (U.P.), even in response to the apprehension roll sent to the Superintendent of Police, District Mathura, report was received that the petitioner is not residing in the village and has joined some private service in Delhi.
9. After having considered the entire gamut of facts and circumstances of the case and the law with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, I am of the considered view that the cause of action neither in full nor in part arises to the petitioner so as to maintain the writ petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This writ petition, thus, cannot be entertained and considered on merits.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the plea of Mr. V. K. Magoo, Sr.CGSC that on the cause of action disclosed in the writ petition, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition. The writ petition is consequently dismissed, as not maintainable in this Court, at the preliminary stage of admission.