CISF Assistant Sub-Inspector's reinstatement petition dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction despite Bihar residence

The Patna HC rejected a writ petition filed by a dismissed CISF Assistant Sub-Inspector seeking reinstatement with back wages. The court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction despite the petitioner being a Bihar resident who made correspondence from Bihar. The court ruled that mere residence and correspondence do not establish partial cause of action within the state's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that employer-employee relations existed in Assam/West Bengal, not Bihar, and accepting such jurisdiction would allow any aggrieved person to invoke their home state HC's jurisdiction regardless of where the actual dispute arose.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in terms of territorial jurisdiction.
2. Validity of the dismissal order, appellate authority order, and revisional authority order.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition in Terms of Territorial Jurisdiction:

The preliminary issue addressed was whether the High Court of Patna has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner, a resident of Bihar, challenged the dismissal order and subsequent affirmations by authorities stationed in Assam and Kolkata. The court examined whether the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within Bihar's jurisdiction.

The petitioner argued that being a resident of Bihar and receiving the dismissal and appellate orders in Bihar constituted a partial cause of action within the state. The petitioner cited several cases, including *Major Ganesh Prasad Sinha vs. The Union of India* and *Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India*, to support this contention.

However, the court emphasized that the cause of action must be integral and substantial. It cited several precedents, including *Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu* and *State of Rajasthan vs. Swaika Properties*, which clarified that mere receipt of orders or communications does not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. The court concluded that the entire cause of action arose in Assam and West Bengal, where the disciplinary proceedings and orders were executed.

The court also referred to Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which allows a High Court to issue writs if the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. It was noted that this provision does not extend to cases where the primary actions and decisions occurred outside the jurisdiction, merely based on the petitioner's residence.

2. Validity of the Dismissal Order, Appellate Authority Order, and Revisional Authority Order:

Since the court determined that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, it did not delve into the merits of the dismissal order, appellate authority order, and revisional authority order. The petitioner's challenge to these orders, based on the disciplinary proceedings conducted in Assam and affirmed in Kolkata, was not addressed substantively due to the jurisdictional limitation.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was rejected on the grounds that the High Court of Patna did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The court held that the cause of action, both wholly and in part, arose in Assam and West Bengal, and the petitioner’s residence in Bihar did not constitute a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner's plea for reinstatement and back wages was not considered.

---