Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 88 (PAT)

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union Of India

2003-01-22

NAGENDRA RAI, R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment 1. This appeal is barred by limitation. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the limitation petition, we are of the view that sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 2365/2000) on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the controversy involved in the writ application. 5. The appellant-writ petitioner had filed the writ application for setting aside the order dated 6.4.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority, (the Directorate General, Border Security Force, New Delhi) affirming the order dated 20.5.1998 passed by the Commandant, 193 BN, Border Security Force dismissing the appellant-writ petitioner from the service. The said orders have been annexed as Annexures 10 & 9 respectively. The respondents raised the objection that as the petitioner was posted at Srinagar and the order of dismissal was passed at Sri Nagar as well as the appellate order was passed in New Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. 6. Admittedly the appellant is a resident of the State of Bihar and he has been dismissed from service on the ground that he was on unauthorized leave. The assertion of the appellant-writ petitioner is that the order of dismissal and the appellate order might have been passed at Sri-Nagar and New Delhi but those orders were made known to him through communications at his village situate in the District of Ara, Bihar and in support of the said facts he has relied upon the two Annexures-9 & 10 respectively. Learned single Judge relied upon the averments made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that adverse orders have been passed, issued and communicated to the petitioner at Sri-Nagar in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and as such this Court has no territorial jurisdiction so as to decide the controversy involved in this case. 7. The law is well settled that so far the order of dismissal is concerned that becomes effective only when it is communicated or made known to the person concerned. 7. The law is well settled that so far the order of dismissal is concerned that becomes effective only when it is communicated or made known to the person concerned. There is no averment in the writ ten statement that the order of dismissal was communicated or served personally to the appellant at Sri-Nagar or it was made known to him at that place. The fact is that it was sent from that place through post to him and was served upon him at his village home. It does not mean that the order of dismissal was brought to his knowledge at his place of posting at Sri-Nagar. As the order of dismissal was sent to the appellant-writ petitioner at his village home and received by him there, the order became known to him at his village home situate in the State of Bihar, and as such this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.