← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/4670/2016

Manoj Kumar v. Union Of India

2016-05-20Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sunil Gaur2 pages

$~22 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4670/2016 MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Lohitkasha Shukla & Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Umesh Sharma, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 20.05.2016 1.

The petitioner who was recruited to the post of a Constable (GD) with the CISF has filed the present petition assailing the order dated 23rd February, 2012, passed by the Disciplinary Authority awarding the penalty of withholding of the next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and upheld vide order dated 16th June, 2012, passed by the Appellate Authority.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner had submitted a statutory revision petition on 30th November, 2012 to the Commandant, CISF, SSG, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, but the same has remained pending at his end for the last three and a half years. 5.

Having perused the impugned orders, we are of the opinion that W.P.(C) 4670/2016

this Court is not vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition, as no part of the actionable cause of action has arisen in Delhi. However, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that if the revision petition dated 30th November, 2012, submitted by the petitioner is still pending, it shall be decided within two weeks from today, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with liberty granted to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's revision petition dated 30th November, 2012, within two weeks from today and convey to him the decision taken. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the respondents, then he shall be at liberty to seek his remedies before the competent court vested with the territorial jurisdiction in that regard, if so advised. 3.

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI, J SUNIL GAUR, J MAY 20, 2016 r W.P.(C) 4670/2016