Manoj Kumar v. Union Of India And Others



     



 

  



 !

"#

!$%&%"' ( (



)'"* +,-.

/! % %"'!.

0!.&,&

'%"'

"# '1% '1  2!.&

/!&3"'1!' &

)

4 5 )( 6 )

65



  
 


 



 



  




 
!!!
)

657 ( 8.9:

"

# 

 $



 
%%&'%%(

 



$
$




") ""

%*"+
, -
 "%.


)"

*/ %*"(
, -
 "*.


"( *% %*"(
, -
 +.



%( "% %*"&
, -
 &.
0 1


 


1
2
2
 



1  %

# 

3
 2


1 '


 

%"

*4 %*") 
1




0
-


21
%*"& 
 $  

%) *+ %*"&

5 
)&

6
5 
%**"
2

1



2
# 
 $
$
 

0
 

21 
0  1$

-

0 





"%

0  

 
78
9



*4 ""

%*"&

 

$ 

 
1

2

0





2


*( "% %*"&
$
 
 $
$
2
# 




%( "% %*"&
0
2
2

# 




 $


%( "% %*"&
0 
2

1
2



"( *% %*"( # 





%( *) %*"(
0 
0
 
2



)"

*/ %*"(
# 

2
 





 
0 
 
2

1
2



") ""

%*"+ )

# 


$
$
 


 

2

8

2
$ 

-
2


$
:
 $
0 



$
0




$






 
2
$ 

- 


$
$ 
 

 
 
1 
 
2
 
 
2 

 

2

1

1
 

$
8


$



2
 

0


$

$ 

:
 

"%

0  

 $
2
$

2
1

%%

# 

$
$
0

$ 

2

0
0
 2


9







 

 
1

0
-
0 ;


 





 

12
 


 
2

22



$

0


9

 
$
 $
3




 '0

 

 
3

 

 
 




3 /

9
1$

0


    



 

12
 

0
22
2$


 


:
 
 



3


 
0

# 
22

2$









 








0 
 
3

 

 
0

1
 


21  &









 
 


0
<$
=
3$2

:>1 
2








  

  

 

(



 
$2


 

 


 

0
 
1 
 +

62
 




2

 


 2

22



$

0




9  
$
0


9
0 
 2

 2

2
2
 


2



0






2

1



,= .

# 



0 
 
2

1
2


# 





0




0
22

 
,:.



 

2
22






0
3

 

 


# 


 $


0
<$
=
3$2

:>1 
2



 

   0 


 1 

 


 

 
:>1 
2




3$2


 



 




0
2 
 




# 







2

0
2

?
= 
 2$
1 
2 


0
 

1
 

0 
0


2


2


?
=  



0
$

@
 
2


 :
0
1


2

 

?
= 

 


2


 2


2

= 

 

0


 




 

0
22

2


2


= 



 


2
 
:>1 
2


 









0 
 
3


:$  :>1 
2










 
0



2
 
 
6

= 

 1
:$ 

!  "  ! 

      

   #  $ % %

$
3$2

:>1 
2


A0
 
,.

 



2



  
1
 6

=

 
:$ 

& '

(  ) ! "

 *

+

 ,-,    $ 

 

;

 #  

  


 

 




2
0


 
$
 







 
3

 
:$  
 
$ 


"5. In Selvin Abraham (supra), the correctness of which is doubted, while working as Assistant Manager in the Punjab & Sind Bank at Coimbatore, the appellant was proceeded against for certain misconducts. Enquiry was conducted at Coimbatore and the charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service. This order was served on him at his native place in Kerala. His appeal and review were also dismissed. He filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the order of suspension, dismissal and the orders passed by the appellate and review authorities.

Objection was raised by the bank that this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the entire cause of action arose outside the State. This contention was accepted by the learned single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Full Bench in Nakul Deo singh (supra) and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

52. Since Nawal Kishore Sharma (supra) was decided "in the peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case, in view of the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra), we should accept the contention that relief was granted in Nawal Kishore Sharma, in exercise of the powers of the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

53. Thus, the conclusion is irresistible, that the principles laid down in Selvin Abraham are contrary, not only to the Full Bench judgment in Nakul Deo Singh but also to the Apex Court judgments we have referred to. As a

 

result, Selvin Abraham does not laid down good law and therefore, is overruled. The question referred to the Full Bench is answered as aforesaid.

54. Coming to the cases that are referred to the Full Bench, in W.A. 743/14, by Ext.P2 notification issued by the appellant from Chennai where its head office is situated, applications were invited to various posts, including the post of Professor (Management). In response to the notification, the respondent, who is presently working as a Professor in the NSS College of Engineering, Palakkad applied and he was invited for an interview at Chennai. He appeared for the interview and was issued Ext.P4 communication from Chennai, whereby, he was offered the post and was asked to report at Chennai. He accepted the offer by Ext.P5 and requested for a posting at the Cochin campus of the appellant. By Ext.P7 e-mail, he was informed that his request was accepted and was requested to report at the head quarters of the appellant. However, by Ext.

P6 e-mail, he was informed that the offer is kept in abeyance and was thereafter issued Ext.P1 communication from Chennai, informing that the offer of appointment was withdrawn. It was in these circumstances, he filed W.P.

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P-1 and quash the same;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to join duty as Professor (Management) as originally ordered in terms of Exhibit P4 read with Exhibit P7 with all consequential benefits emanating therefrom;"

 

55.

In so far as W.P. (C) 8678/14 is concerned, since 30.3.2009, the petitioner herein was working as Branch Manager of Indian Bank at Microsate at Puducherry. He continued there till 29.4.2010 when he was transferred and posted to Perinthalmanna, where, he joined on 1.5.2010. He was later transferred to Kunnamkulam on 11.7.2011 and while working at Kunnamkulam, by Ext.P2 order, he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. He was thereafter issued with Ext.P3 memo of charges containing various misconducts, all relating to his tenure at Puducherry and the disciplinary authority was the Assistant General Manager, Zonal office, Puducherry, the 4th respondent. Preliminary enquiry was conducted at the Zonal office, Puducherry on 30.12.2011 and the petitioner participated in the enquiry.

56. Thereafter, enquiry was also conducted at the Zonal office, Puducherry in which also, the petitioner participated. Ext.P4 is the report of the enquiry that was submitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, forwarded the enquiry report along with his letter dated 20.7.2012, which was served on the petitioner while he was at Palakkad. The petitioner submitted his objection against the findings of the enquiry officer. This was considered by the disciplinary authority, who, thereafter, issued Ext.P5 order dated 26.9.2012, removing the petitioner from service. This order was issued from Puducherry and was served on the petitioner while he was at Palakkad. He filed an appeal to the General manager, Indian Bank, Chennai which was rejected and this order was also communicated to the petitioner at Palakkad. He filed a review application to the first respondent, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank at Chennai. That was also rejected by Ext.P9 order which also was served on the petitioner at Palakkad.



It was in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed with the following main prayers:

1) To issue Writ in the (nature of) certiorari to quash Ext.P3, Ext.P4, Ext.P5, Ext.P6 & Ext.P9 as legally unsustainable and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

2) To issue Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with retrospective effect from the date of dismissal and grant all other consequential benefits including arrears of pay, pay and allowance etc.

3) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to treat the period of absence from the date of suspension to date of reinstatement as duty for all purposes and grant such other service benefits which were otherwise entitled to the petitioner untrammeled by the suspension and subsequent dismissal from service.

57. Having gone through the pleadings, we do not see any averment in the writ petitions where the petitioners have raised any plea as to how the Kerala High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the cause of action which led them to file the writ petitions. Instead, counsel wanted us to infer from the above pleading that an integral part the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, if the facts which we have noticed above are evaluated in the light of the law laid down in Nakul Deo Singh and the Apex Court judgments, according to us, the only conclusion that is possible is that no part of the cause of action, much less any integral part of the cause of action, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court justifying the entertainment of these writ petitions."



2 
8
2



1

=

 


!. /+,0  $ ,

   $ 

12
, 3 4  ,%, , # 
0




2$
 
<$

 
= 
 
2
0


 
<$

 

9
 1



23

0
 
 
 


 
1

2
22




3


0
 "*


0

 


$
 



 

 






0 
3

 

 




21  



1


2

21 
1
0 8)

65:

  ( (