TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ager. 3. The petitioner was served with a suspension order on 24th June 2002 issued by General Manager, PDIL, informing him about serious allegations against him for misappropriation of the company's money through reimbursement of medical expenses for abnormally large amount by submitting false, fictitious medical claim for self and family members. The petitioner was informed that during the period of suspension he would not be allowed to enter into the PDIL premises without a written permission of the competent authority, his ID card was surrendered and he was advised to sign the attendance sheet daily. He was made aware that he would be entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. 4. Thereafter, a Chargesheet Memo was issued against the petitioner on 22nd July 2002, whereby the following Article of Charges were framed against him:- "ARTICLE I: Dr. H.S. Rai has been misappropriating Company's money by getting reimbursement of medical expenses for himself and for his wife Mrs. Lalita Rai by adopting malpractices and by submitting false and fictitious claims/declaration/statement regularly. ARTICLE II: Dr. H.S. Rai ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against him. 6. Subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the case of the petitioner, which was held in three sessions on 27th September 2002, 1st October 2002 and 3rd October 2002. The concerned enquiry officer submitted his report on 12th October 2002 holding that all the charges as alleged against the petitioner were proved. 7. On and the basis of the enquiry report, the competent authority issued the memorandum dated 16th January 2003 inflicting penalty upon the petitioner in terms of Clause 27(d) of PDIL, CDA Rules, i.e. reduction to a lower post and scale of pay and accordingly, the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Assistant Chief Engineer in the scale of Rs. 5400-9050/- w.e.f. 24th June 2002 i.e. the day he was placed under suspension. The basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 5400/- from said date. The report stated that the seniority of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher grade will be counted from 24th June 2002. To recover the amount of Rs. 64,271/-, being the amount drawn by him towards medical reimbursement during the year 2001-2002, he was entitled to get medical allowance of Rs. 250/- per month w.e.f. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... I & II and merely said that the Article of Charges I & II are conclusion of the Charges at Article III, IV, and V so, if Charges on III, IV, and V, are proved, the Charges I & II are automatically proved. This approach of the inquiry officer was patently illegal as there is no reasonable ground for levying the said charges and hence, the report is liable to be quashed. 14. It is submitted that the Charge III has illegally been held to be proved against the petitioner without considering the explanation of the petitioner where he stated that bill no.819 was for the medicine prescribe on 6th June 2001 and it was verified and signed by the Senior Medical Officer, PDIL on 11th June 2001. Further, Charge IV that the petitioner was not the project manager when he signed the bill by himself as controlling officer is wrong as the petitioner was the project manager and he has various documents to the effect. It is further submitted that Charge V has been wrongly held to be proved as the petitioner purchased the medicines for 84 days as prescribed by the Doctor and certified by Dr. A. K. Pandey, Senior Medical Officer and settled by H.O.D. Finance Department. It is submitted that even t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benefit of VRS, all issues prior to VRS related to employment are deemed to be closed as is well settled. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot now be permitted to turn around and challenge the penalty order dated 16th January 2003 and ask for further monetary relief through that. 19. The written submissions on behalf of the respondent no. 1-3 are also on record and it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the proper forum for the adjudication of the instant case would be the High Court of Jharkhand and not this Court. It is submitted that since no cause of action has arisen in Delhi, there is no locus for the petitioner to approach this Court. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 21. Since, at the very outset the maintainability of the instant petition has been challenged by the respondents, before delving into the question of law raised by the petitioner it is deemed necessary to look into whether this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the challenge to the penalty order dated 16th January 2003 passed against the petitioner. The respondents have alleged that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing there being no unit or office of the PDIL in Delhi, are being referred to by this Court as well. There is no office of the respondents at Delhi which may fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 24. Reference is also made to the observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nirman Sarkar vs. Canara bank and Ors., WP No.11116/2021 decided on 23rd August 2022, which are reproduced hereunder:- "6. The issue as regards the territorial jurisdiction has been summarized by the Apex Court. Kusum Ingots (supra) the Apex Court in Paragraph No. 27 held as under: 27. When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtain writs. (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without- (a) furnishing to such part....