Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 990 (PAT)

Danial Kumar v. State of Bihar

2012-07-19

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2012
ORDER Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21st September 2011 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11701 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The appellant, a Sub Inspector of Police in the erstwhile State of Bihar, on formation of the State of Jharkhand, came to be allotted to the State of Jharkhand. While the appellant was in service in the larger State of Bihar, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in the month of May 1999 in respect of an act of misconduct allegedly committed in 1998. Pursuant to the finding of guilt in the said enquiry, by order dated 26th December 2002 made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, the appellant was visited with punishment of withholding of one increment without future effect. However, his accomplice in the misconduct, one Arun Kumar Singh, was, for the same incidence of misconduct, visited with punishment of dismissal from service. The said order was challenged by the said Arun Kumar Singh before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 942 of 2004. By judgment and order dated 17th January 2008 passed by this Court, the said C.W.J.C. No. 942 of 2004 filed by the aforesaid Arun Kumar Singh was dismissed. In answer to the question of equality raised by the said Arun Kumar Singh vis-a-vis the appellant, this Court observed, “If the proceedings have been completed and the accomplice of the petitioner has had the benefit of the same this Court requires the respondents to re-examine the matter in the light of the order of this Court and the findings arrived at herein after issuance of notice to the concerned delinquent and hearing him.” 3. Since the aforesaid order of punishment, pursuant to the formation of the State of Jharkhand, the appellant was allotted to the State of Jharkhand. In view of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court on 17th January 2008, the said order of punishment was reviewed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand. Pursuant to the said review, by order dated 13th July 2009 made by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, the appellant has been ordered to be dismissed from service. Pursuant to the said review, by order dated 13th July 2009 made by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, the appellant has been ordered to be dismissed from service. It is the said order of dismissal from service which was challenged by the appellant in above C.W.J.C. No. 11701 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Learned single Judge has held that since his allocation to the State of Jharkhand, the appellant was the servant of the State of Jharkhand. The order impugned was made by the authority of the State of Jharkhand. The Patna High Court, therefore, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal. 5. Learned advocate Mr. K.M.Joseph has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the charge-sheet was issued upon the appellant in 1999 in the State of Bihar. Thus, a part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Bihar. The Patna High Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by the appellant. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of K.H.Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala and others, { (2006) 6 SCC 395 ); of Alchemist Ltd. and another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and others, { (2007) 11 SCC 335 }; and of Rajendran Chingravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and others, { (2010) 1 SCC 457 }. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Neeraj Kumar has appeared for the State of Jharkhand. He has supported the Appeal. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Md. Nasrul Huda Khan has appeared for the State of Bihar. He has contested the Appeal. He has relied upon Section 89 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2000’). He has submitted that every proceeding pending in the State of Bihar in relation to the areas of the State of Jharkhand stands transferred under Section 89 of the Act of 2000. The petition has rightly been rejected on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. 8. At the outset, we may note that Section 89 of the Act of 2000 refers to the transfer of the pending cases (except the matters pending in the High Court). The petition has rightly been rejected on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. 8. At the outset, we may note that Section 89 of the Act of 2000 refers to the transfer of the pending cases (except the matters pending in the High Court). The said section can have no applicability to the writ petitions filed after the date of enactment of the Act of 2000. Besides, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is derived by the provisions contained in the said Article, it cannot be curtailed by any parliamentary or legislative enactment. 9. Article 226 of the Constitution confers power upon the High Court to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises its jurisdiction for enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. Clause (2) thereof empowers the High Court to issue such writ, order or direction to any Government, authority or a person, although the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within its territories, if the cause of action wholly or in part arises within the territories within which the High Court has jurisdiction. Thus, Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution has expanded the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court over any part of the country provided the cause of action or part thereof arose within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction. 10. In the present case the Patna High Court has jurisdiction over the territories of the State of Bihar. The Patna High Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to issue writ, order or direction to any other Government (in the present case the State of Jharkhand), if the cause of action or part thereof has arose within the territories of the State of Bihar. 11. The subject matter of the present dispute is the disciplinary proceeding and the order of punishment imposed upon the appellant. A disciplinary proceeding is spread over various stages commencing from issuance of charge-sheet and ending with the order of punishment or exoneration. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated in the territories of the present State of Bihar. The order of punishment was also made in the territory of the present State of Bihar. A disciplinary proceeding is spread over various stages commencing from issuance of charge-sheet and ending with the order of punishment or exoneration. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated in the territories of the present State of Bihar. The order of punishment was also made in the territory of the present State of Bihar. It is that order made in the State of Bihar which was taken in review by the respondent State of Jharkhand. Therefore, at least a part of cause of action essentially arose within the territories of the present State of Bihar. 12. For the aforesaid reason, we hold that the Patna High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by the appellant in respect of his dismissal from service ordered by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand. 13. For the aforesaid reason, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 21st September 2011 made by the learned single Judge is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 11701 of 2011 is revived and remitted to the learned single Judge for hearing and decision on merits. 14. Registry will notify the writ petition for admission hearing in accordance with the roster.