Petition Dismissed: Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Service Dismissal Case, Allows Pursuit in Correct Forum.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an order of dismissal from service due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner's dismissal and related proceedings occurred outside the HC's jurisdiction, despite the appellate order being issued from within its territory. The court emphasized that jurisdiction requires the "cause of action" to occur within its territorial limits. The petition was dismissed without addressing the merits, permitting the petitioner to pursue remedies in the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service based on territorial considerations.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of dismissal from service. The petitioner was found guilty of charges and removed from service based on an enquiry held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The key contention was the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ application due to the location of the enquiry and issuance of the order of punishment. The petitioner challenged the appellate order issued from Delhi within the High Court's jurisdiction.

The High Court, referencing the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner's advocate argued that even the receipt of a notice within the High Court's jurisdiction could invest it with jurisdiction. However, the court emphasized that the "cause of action" must relate to facts occurring within the court's territorial limits to confer jurisdiction. In this case, the proceedings of the enquiry, order of punishment, and appellate order did not take place within the High Court's jurisdiction, rendering it devoid of jurisdiction.

The court distinguished the facts of other cases cited by the petitioner's advocate, emphasizing that the facts of those cases were dissimilar to the present case. It highlighted that the impugned actions, including the charge sheet, did not occur within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal. The application was dismissed, with the court clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the case's merits, allowing the petitioner to seek recourse in an appropriate forum.

---