Binod Kumar Singh vs The Union of India and Another

S.K. Katriar, J.—Heard Mr. Harendra Pratap Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The learned Additional Standing Counsel raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition. He submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to court-martial proceedings which, in his submission, has not been challenged in the present proceedings. The petitioner claims post-retirement benefits for having rendered services covering 15 years 11 months and 23 days. The learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was last serving at Bangalore where the court-martial proceedings had taken place. The order of the disciplinary authority was passed at Bangalore. The seat of the appellate authority is at Pune. Relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others , he submits that no part of the cause of action within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable in this Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Rameshwar Prasad Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, (Annexure-11) and submits that the writ petition is maintainable in this Court. Learned Additional Standing Counsel tries to meet this judgment on the strength of his submission that the same overlooks the distinction in law between the two positions which are quite distinct from each other, namely, an order of dismissal becomes effective on communication, but this does not by itself mean that the place where it was communicated will create jurisdiction in part or whole for the High Court within whose jurisdiction the place of communication is situate. In his submission, communication does not create jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It appears to me that the two Division Benches judgments are seemingly contradictory to each other. In my view, it needs the authoritative pronouncement of a Full Bench to resolve the conflict between the two Division Benches and thereby a larger issue of vital public interest relating to jurisdiction of this Court. Let it be placed before a Division Bench for appropriate orders after obtaining orders of Hon''ble the Chief Justice.