Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 414 (KER)

Selvin Abraham v. Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi

2024-04-02

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

body2024
ORDER : 1. This Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came up before us as per Reference Order dated 07.01.2016 of the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The limited facts necessary for answering the reference alone are stated here, as we do not intend to consider the matter on merits. 3. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Management Grade Scale I Officer in the 1st respondent Bank and later was promoted to Assistant Manager. While the petitioner had been working as Assistant Manager at the Coimbatore Branch of the 1st respondent, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 dated 27.7.1993. A punishment of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner as per Ext.P13 order of the 4th respondent dated 13.06.1995. The Appellate Authority confirmed Ext.P13 order by Ext.P16 Order dated 15.7.1996. The Reviewing Authority of the 1st respondent considered the matter and confirmed the penalty against the petitioner as per Ext.P20 Order dated 12.11.1998. The petitioner filed the present Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Exts.P1, P13, P16 and P20 orders and seeking a direction to reinstate him in service with all past benefits, as if he had been in continuous service and promotions, if any. 4. The 1st respondent bank raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Original Petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction for this Court to entertain the Original Petition. They contended that all disciplinary proceedings concerning the petitioner were taken outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the state of Kerala. Petitioner defended this contention, contending that although he was employed in Coimbatore during the relevant time, he received Ext.P13 order of dismissal from service at his last known address at Kottayam, Kerala and thus part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. He further contended that the order of dismissal would only be complete when the same is communicated to him. Thus, the order of dismissal is complete in Kottayam. He relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, that if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court the said Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Thus, the order of dismissal is complete in Kottayam. He relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, that if the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court the said Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. According to him, in the case, part of the cause of action i.e. completion of the order of dismissal took place in Kottayam within the jurisdiction of this court. 5. The Learned Single Judge of this Court considered the question of want of territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the Original Petition and passed judgment dated 04.04.2006, dismissing the Original Petition as not maintainable. The judgment held that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court followed the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Naik Nakul Deo Singh vs. The Deputy Commandant, CISF, Kottayam, 1999 (3) KLT 629 . The Full Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the cause of action does not arise in the place of service of the order of dismissal by the disciplinary authority for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The judgment dated 04.04.2006 of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 1549/2006. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal as per judgment dated 28.06.2013, setting aside the judgment dated 04.04.2006 of the learned Single Judge. It is held that the Original petition is maintainable as part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the Single Judge for disposing of the Original Petition on its merits. The said Division Bench judgment is reported as Selvin Abraham vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Others, 2013 (3) KLT 481 . 7. The Division Bench of this Court distinguished the Full Bench judgment in Naik Nakul Deo Singh (supra) and found that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. The said Division Bench judgment is reported as Selvin Abraham vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Others, 2013 (3) KLT 481 . 7. The Division Bench of this Court distinguished the Full Bench judgment in Naik Nakul Deo Singh (supra) and found that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. The Division Bench took note of the decision of this court in Union of India and Others vs. Kunjabdulla, 1985 (1) SLJ 471, that when the impugned order is made by an authority in one state, but it becomes effective on service in another state, the High Court in the latter state shall also have jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arises within that state. The Division Bench distinguished between the service of the order of dismissal and the service of the appellate order arising from the order of dismissal. The Division Bench found that the cases before the Full Bench were not related to the service of the original order of dismissal but related to the appellate order arising from the order of dismissal. The Division Bench found that the Full Bench did not overrule the Division Bench judgment in Kunjabdulla (supra) and that it indicates that the Full Bench was considering the impact of service of notice in appeal and not the factual circumstances relating to the service of the original order of dismissal. 8. The respondents filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 35691/2018 challenging the judgment dt.28.06.2013 in Writ Appeal No. 1549/2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While the Special Leave Petition was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, another Division Bench of this Court felt that the view taken in the Division Bench judgment dated 28.06.2013 in Writ Appeal No. 1549/2006 was apparently in conflict with the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Naik Nakul Deo Singh (supra). Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Full Bench, and the Full Bench of this Court rendered the decision in Registrar, Indian Maritime University Chennai vs. Dr. K.G. Viswanathan and Another, 2014 (4) KHC 451 , overruling the Division Bench judgment dated 28.06.2013 Writ Appeal No. 1549/2006. 9. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Full Bench, and the Full Bench of this Court rendered the decision in Registrar, Indian Maritime University Chennai vs. Dr. K.G. Viswanathan and Another, 2014 (4) KHC 451 , overruling the Division Bench judgment dated 28.06.2013 Writ Appeal No. 1549/2006. 9. Later, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 35691/2018 filed by the respondents as per order dated 07.09.2015, holding that they were not inclined to entertain the petition in view of the fact that a Full Bench of this Court has overruled the impugned judgment. Later the respondents filed a Clarification Petition as I.A. No. 2/2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by order dated 29.08.2016. 10. When the Original Petition came up for final hearing before the Learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge referred the matter for consideration by the Division Bench by passing the following Reference order: “1. The petitioner was an Assistant Manager in the respondent Bank who was dismissed from service at Coimbatore. The petitioner though was dismissed from the State of Tamil Nadu, filed the above writ petition before this Court. The issue of jurisdiction was raised as a preliminary question by the respondent Bank. The issue stood decided in their favour by judgment dated 04.04.2006. The matter was taken in appeal by the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 1549/2006 found that there is jurisdiction and remanded back the matter for fresh consideration before the learned Single Judge. 2. Now it has been placed on record that the Division Bench judgment has been overruled by a Full Bench in On the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench, an SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was disposed of recording the fact that the decision impugned has been overruled by the Full Bench. It is to be specifically noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not dismiss the SLP but disposed it of recording the fact that the Full Bench had overruled the decision in the writ appeal. The petitioner is also said to have appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, inter-parties there is a decision of the Division Bench; which stands over-ruled by a Full Bench. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the matter would have to be considered by a Division Bench. The petitioner is also said to have appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, inter-parties there is a decision of the Division Bench; which stands over-ruled by a Full Bench. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the matter would have to be considered by a Division Bench. The Registry shall place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.” 11. In the light of the Reference Order, the sole issue to be considered by us in this Original petition is regarding the question of territorial jurisdiction for entertaining this original petition. 12. We heard the petitioner, who appeared in person before us, and Senior Counsel Sri. Jaju Babu, who appeared for the respondents. 13. On the strength of the Full Bench judgment in Registrar, Indian Maritime University Chennai (supra) the Senior Counsel for the respondents argued that since the Division Bench judgment dated 28.06.2013 is overruled by the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed, holding that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Relying on the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.09.2015 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 35691/2018, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the respondents, taking note of the fact that the judgment dated 28.06.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. No. 1549/2006 is overruled by the Full Bench, the decision in W.A. No. 1549/2006 holding that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the original petition is not subsisting. He also drew our attention to the Order dated 29.08.2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No. 2/2015 for clarification filed by the respondents as in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 35691/2013 in which, though the Application for clarification is dismissed, it is made clear that all questions are left open for decision by the High Court. According to him, this Court can consider the question of want of territorial jurisdiction afresh in the light of the changed law in accordance with the Full Bench judgment in Registrar, Indian Maritime University Chennai (supra). 14. According to him, this Court can consider the question of want of territorial jurisdiction afresh in the light of the changed law in accordance with the Full Bench judgment in Registrar, Indian Maritime University Chennai (supra). 14. Per Contra, the petitioner submitted that what is overruled by the Full Bench is the finding of law of the Division Bench in the Judgment dated 28.06.2013 in W.A. No. 1549/2006 [Selvin Abraham (supra)] and not the decision itself. They argued that as long as the said inter partes Division Bench judgment is not set aside, the parties herein are bound by the said judgment, and consequently this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition. 15. It is true that the decision Selvin Abraham (supra), which is passed in the present Original Petition, is overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Registrar, Indian Maritime University Chennai (supra). But, we are unable to accept the argument of the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. According to us, what is overruled by the Full Bench in Registrar, Indian Maritime University Chennai (supra), is the principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 28.06.2013 in W.A. No. 1549/2006. According to us, the inter partes judgment of the Division Bench has become final and the same is subsisting now since the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not entertain the challenge against it. Therefore, parties are bound by the decision inter partes in the judgment dated 28.06.2013 in Writ Appeal No. 1549/2006 holding that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Original Petition. The parties cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same on account of the finality of the said judgment. We are fortified with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopakumar B. Nair vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 800 for taking such a view. In this decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically said in Paragraph 12 as follows: “Reference of a case to a larger bench necessarily has to be for a reconsideration of the principle of law on which the case has been decided and not the merits of the decision. The decision rendered by any Bench is final inter partes, subject to the power of review and curative power. The decision rendered by any Bench is final inter partes, subject to the power of review and curative power. Any other view would have the effect of conferring some kind of an appellate power in a larger bench of this court which cannot be countenanced. However the principle of law on which the decision is based is open to reconsideration by a larger Bench in appropriate case.” 16. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Devi vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 5 SCC 697 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking analogy from the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule (1), held that the judgment sought to be was overruled in another case subsequently is not ground for reviewing the said decision. In Pradeep Kumar Maskara and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 653 , following the decision in Shanti Devi the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the decision of a question of law has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment merely because a subsequent judgment of the Single Bench has taken contrary view. So, in the present case, even a Review Petition from the part of the respondents to review the judgment dated 28.06.2013 in W.A. No. 1549/2009 is permissible. 17. Lastly, the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.08.2016 in I.A. No. 2/2016 for clarification also would not improve the case of the respondents. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that all questions are left open for decision by the High Court while dismissing the petition for clarification. But the facts remain that the Special Leave to Appeal was not entertained and the Petition for Clarification was dismissed. The questions left open by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be construed to include the question of territorial jurisdiction, which is already concluded by this Court in the judgment dated 28.06.2013 in W.A. No. 1549/2006, holding that the present Original Petition is maintainable in this Court. It does not authorise or permit us to entertain and reconsider the concluded question of territorial jurisdiction. 18. It does not authorise or permit us to entertain and reconsider the concluded question of territorial jurisdiction. 18. In view of the aforesaid propositions of law and in view of the aforesaid binding judgment dated 28.06.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1549/2006, we are unable to hold that the present Original petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution lacks territorial jurisdiction. We are fully justified in holding that the present Original Petition is maintainable in this Court, and we hold so. 19. The Reference is answered as above. We order the Registry of this Court to place the files before the learned Single Judge for disposing of the Original Petition on its merits. Since this is an Original Petition of the year 1998, the Registry of this Court is directed to list the Original Petition for hearing at an early date for early disposal. 20. The Reference is answered accordingly.