CRPF | Mere Receipt Of Termination Order In Kashmir Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction To Hear Challenge Against Order Passed In Patna: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently refused to hear challenge to an order passed by CRPF commandant in Patna terminating the services of a personnel, merely because the latter received such order in Kashmir.A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,"In the instant case, the order whereby the petitioner has been declared as a ‘deserter’ has been passed by Commandant...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently refused to hear challenge to an order passed by CRPF commandant in Patna terminating the services of a personnel, merely because the latter received such order in Kashmir.
A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
"In the instant case, the order whereby the petitioner has been declared as a ‘deserter’ has been passed by Commandant of 134 Bn. CRPF at Gulzarbagh Patna, Bihar. The impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner has been passed by the Commandant at Ranchi Jharkhand and the enquiry proceedings have also taken place at Ranchi Jharkhand. All these places are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court."
Shedding light on the jurisprudence on territorial jurisdiction, the bench said not every fact presented by the petitioner in their writ petition automatically establishes a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. For the facts to be relevant, they must have a connection or nexus with the subject matter of the case (lis), the court emphasised.
“In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, it must be disclosed that the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has arisen within its jurisdiction... the cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the petitioner to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment of the court. It does not comprise of every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact but every fact it is necessary to be proved. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the petitioner a right to claim relief against the respondents. It must include some act done by the respondents, since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise."
Petitioner was terminated from CRPF citing unauthorized absence from duty. He contended that he had no intention to overstay leave but since he got kidnapped and tortured during this period, his nervous system was adversely impacted, rendering him unable to report back to duty on time.
He also contended that the termination order was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice, as he was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry.
Contesting the plea the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the impugned order of termination as well as the order declaring the petitioner as a ‘deserter’ were passed in Patna. Even the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner was conducted at a place located outside the territorial limits of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
The Court agreed that all the impugned actions, including the termination order and the 'deserter' declaration, were taken outside its territorial limits. It said mere fact that the petitioner received the orders in Kashmir did not confer jurisdiction upon it.
Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum as per the law.
Case Title: Shahnawaz Ahmad Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 209