Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 523 (JHR)

Joydeb Dey v. Punjab National Bank

2016-03-29

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is at admission stage and with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the instant appeal is taken up on Board for its final consideration. 2. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner (in short hereinafter referred as “petitioner”) contends that in so far as, the first prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition vis-a-vis quashing of the order dated 11.06.2011 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent-Chief Manager, Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, Midnapur West (WB) is concerned, the territorial jurisdiction to throw challenge to the said order lies with Calcutta High Court, but with regard to other prayers i.e. prayer nos. (ii) and (iii) for quashing the order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, HRD Department, New Delhi and the appellate order dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Executive Director-cum-Appellate Authority, Punjab National Bank, Head Office-New Delhi, the High Court of Jharkhand certainly has jurisdiction. It is submitted that all the proceedings before the order of compulsory retirement dated 05.02.2010 was passed, were initiated when the petitioner was posted at Ranchi. A charge-memo dated 19.12.2007 was served upon the petitioner at Ranchi and the reply to the said charge-memo was submitted by the petitioner when he was posted at Ranchi. On 27.04.2009 written statement of the defence was filed by the petitioner at Ranchi and thereafter, on 20.05.2009 the Enquiry Report was submitted when the petitioner was posted within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He submitted that after all these proceedings had culminated, the petitioner was transferred to Midnapur (West Bengal) where the final order of punishment of compulsory retirement was served upon him on 05.02.2010. The learned counsel thus contends that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction to the High Court of Jharkhand though, the final order of compulsory retirement was ultimately slapped upon him when he was posed at Midnapur (West Bengal). The learned counsel thus contends that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction to the High Court of Jharkhand though, the final order of compulsory retirement was ultimately slapped upon him when he was posed at Midnapur (West Bengal). The learned counsel lastly submitted that in fact after passing of the order dated 15.03.2011 by the Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 3354 (w) of 2011 whereby, the bank had filed a review petition of the said order and that the petitioner had not thrown any challenge to the said order, it is during the pendency of the said review petition, decision dated 11.06.2011 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) was taken by the respondent no. 5 [Chief Manager, Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, Midnapur West (WB)] to the effect that the petitioner was not eligible to opt for pension. The learned counsel submitted that therefore, the view taken by the learned Writ Court for not entertaining the writ petition on the ground that the matter is arising out of the same cause of action which is pending before the Calcutta High Court and that it is not desirable that the petitioner should pursue the remedy before this Court, is not sustainable. The learned counsel thus submitted that the impugned order of the learned Writ Court may be set-aside and the writ petition may be remitted back to the Writ Court being maintainable in the High Court of Jharkhand. 3. Per-contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank contended that the petitioner, in fact, has made four-fold prayers in the writ petition and if one looks at prayer no. (iv) which is with regard to issuance of direction for payment of all the retiral benefits including, the pension and leave encashment, the said aspect has already been dealt by the Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 3354 (w) of 2011 and a specific direction has also been issued by the Calcutta High Court. The learned counsel submitted that since it was not permissible in law to grant pension etc. to the petitioner, the bank filed review petition before the Calcutta High Court, which is still pending and that aspect has also been noticed in the present proceeding by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel submitted that since it was not permissible in law to grant pension etc. to the petitioner, the bank filed review petition before the Calcutta High Court, which is still pending and that aspect has also been noticed in the present proceeding by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank however, fairly admitted that all the proceedings except, passing of the final order of punishment of compulsory retirement which was served upon the petitioner at Midnapur (West Bengal), had culminated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 4. From the facts pleaded in the present proceeding, it is apparent that a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand. A “cause of action” which is generally described as a “bundle of facts”, includes some act done by the defendant/respondent which has resulted in infraction of right or which provided immediate occasion for the reaction. We find that the allegation in the charge-memo is that the petitioner had committed misappropriation of certain amount while posted at one of the branches of the bank at Ranchi. It is well-settled that the High Court can exercise power to issue writ if the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction notwithstanding, that the authority issuing order does not reside or falls within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction [“Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors.” (1994) 4 SCC 711 ]. In “Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Anr.” (2006) 6 SCC 207 , a case in which the High Court of Delhi refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner's case can be more effectively dealt with by the Allahabad High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the order passed by the Delhi High Court and remitted the matter to it for hearing on merits. 5. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially the fact that the departmental proceedings which were initiated by serving a charge-memo to the petitioner at Ranchi had culminated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the same must be held to constitute a part of cause of action entitling the petitioner to file his writ petition at High Court of Jharkhand. The order of the learned Writ Court declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction is thus not sustainable. 6. Resultantly, the appeal on hand is allowed as prayed for. Impugned order dated 20.11.2014 is set-aside. The entire matter is remitted to the learned Writ Court for deciding it on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Writ Court on 12.04.2016. Registry to take note of it.