Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 544 (MP)

R. K. Verma v. Bank Of India

2019-07-25

VIVEK RUSIA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri PBS Nair, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 24-6-2001 passed by the Discipline Authority, order dated 4-10-2004 passed by the Appellate authority and order dated 21-6-2006 passed by the reviewing authority whereby the major penalty of dismissal from services of the bank has been imposed. 3. The respondent has filed the written statement by raising preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for want of territorial jurisdiction. As per the respondent/bank, the charge-sheet for committing the offence of misconduct/irregularities while working as Manager at Branch Arkari District Garhchiroli, Maharashtra was served upon the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings in respect of charges were held at Nagpur. The penalty order dated 24-6-2001 was passed by the Zonal Manager at Nagpur. The appellate order was passed by the Dy. General Manager at Nagpur and likewise, review order dated 21-6-2006 was passed by General Manager (HR) at Mumbai, therefore, no cause of action had arisen to the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after termination of the services of the petitioner has settled at Ujjain. He received the order passed by the reviewing authority at Ujjain. Therefore, as per Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 , this Court has having territorial jurisdiction. 5. Per contra, Shri Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others vs. Kalyan Banerjee, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 456 the writ petition was filed before the High Court where head office of the employer is situated, but it has been held that writ petition is not maintainable as no cause of action had arisen at Kolkata. 6. The facts of the case are not disputed that the charges levelled against the petitioner are for the period and place when he was posted at Garhchiroli, Maharashtra. 6. The facts of the case are not disputed that the charges levelled against the petitioner are for the period and place when he was posted at Garhchiroli, Maharashtra. The enquiry was held at Nagpur. The disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Authority at Nagpur passed the orders and reviewing authority also passed the order situated at Mumbai. The petitioner participated in the enquiry at Nagpur, thereafter, the order of termination as well as order passed by the Appellate Authority were served upon the petitioner at Chandrapur, Maharashtra. The petitioner filed the present petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court because he received the order passed by the reviewing authority at Ujjain. In considered opinion of this Court, none of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Apex Court in the case of Alchemist Ltd. and another vs. State Bank of Sikkam and others, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335 has held that necessary facts must form of integral part of cause of action, the fact which is neither material not essential nor integral part of cause of action was not constituted part of cause of action within the meaning of Clause-2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of National Textile Corporation India Ltd. vs. Haribox Swalram, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 786 , the Apex Court has held that the mere fact that the writ petitioner carries business at Calcutta or that the reply to the correspondence made by it was received at Kolkata is not an integral part of the cause of action and, therefore, the Kolkata high Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 7. In the case of an employee of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) who was terminated at Mugma (State of Jharkhand) filed the writ petition before the Calcutta High Court where the head office of employer ECL is situated. The Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) has held that since the entire cause of action arose within the State of Jharkhand, only because of head office of company is situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself would not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court particularly, when the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against the petitioner. 8. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has only received the copy of order of dismissal of the review petition at Ujjain. This fact is neither material nor essential nor integral part of cause of action to constitute the part of cause of action for filing the writ petition before this Court. Therefore, the objection taken by the respondent is hereby upheld. The petition is dismissed as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. 9. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case and dismissal of the petition will not come in the way of the petitioner for filing the writ petition before the Court having territorial jurisdiction. No order as to cost.