The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.30447 of 2021 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Padma Nabha Mallick …. Petitioner -versus- Union of India & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. Millan Kanungo, Sr.Adv. along with Mr. Ashis Mishra, Adv. For Opp. Parties: Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along
Legal Reasoning
with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:12.08.2025 and Date of Judgment:12.08.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dt.23.11.2020 so passed under Annexure-4, further confirmed in Appeal vide order dt.05.04.2021 under Annexure-5 and vide order dt.15.07.2021 under Annexure-6. // 2 // 2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that vide order under Anneuxre-4, Petitioner was removed from service while continuing as a Constable in CISF Unit IOC Panipat. Against such order of removal, appeal filed by the Petitioner before the appellate authority was rejected vide
Decision
order dt.05.04.2021 under Annexure-5 and by the Revisional authority vide order dt.15.07.2021 under Annexure-6. 2.1. It is contended that since such an order of removal has been passed in respect of a charge which is not so serious, order of removal passed taking into account such mis-conduct on the part of the Petitioner, is not sustainable in the eye of law. The said issue was also not properly appreciated by the Appellate authority and Revisional authority while rejecting the Appeal and the Revision. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order needs interference of this Court. 3. Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned D.S.G.I appearing on behalf of Opp. Parties prior to going into the Page 2 of 11 // 3 // merits and contentions raised, raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition inter-alia contending that since the cause of action arose while the Petitioner was in duty at Panipat in the State of Haryana, the Writ Petition against such order of removal passed under Annexure-4, confirmed under Annexures-5 & 6 is not entertainable by this Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the issue involved. 3.1. It is also contended that Petitioner all through is serving outside the State of Orissa since his appointment as a Constable in CISF and while continuing as such in CISF Unit IOC Panipat, he was proceeded with in the proceeding for his alleged misconduct and removed from service vide order under Annexure-4. It is contended that since for the alleged mis-conduct so made by the Petitioner while in service at Panipat, he was proceeded with, with passing of the order of removal at Panipat in the State of Haryana, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the issue. It is accordingly contended that the Writ Petition against the impugned orders is not maintainable before this Court and Petitioner has to Page 3 of 11 // 4 // challenge the impugned order before the competent Court having the territorial jurisdiction. Learned Central Govt. Counsel in support of the submission relied on the following decisions:- 1. The State of Goa Vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. & Others and batch, 2023 Live Law (SC ) 184. 2. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs Union of India and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 254 3. Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India & Another, AIR 1961 SC 532 3.2. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Summit Online Trade Solutions(P ) Ltd. & Others in Para 15 of the Judgment has held as follows:- “15. xxx xxx xxx Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant. It. therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of Page 4 of 11 // 5 // challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. 3.3. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. in Para 16,18 & 30 of the Judgment has held as follows:- 16. In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. it was held that in order confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition it must disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide the dispute and the entire or a part of it arose within its jurisdiction. 18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the Court. xxx xxx xxx 30. We, must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. 3.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh in Para 16 of the Judgment has held as follows:- Page 5 of 11 // 6 // “16. xxx xxx xxx The concept of cause of action cannot in our opinion be introduced in Article 226, for by doing so we shall be doing away with the express provision contained therein which requires that the person or authority to whom the writ is to be issued should be resident in or located within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction. xxx xxx xxx 4. Mr. M. Kanungo, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner on the other hand on the question of maintainability contended that since Petitioner while residing in the State, was communicated with the order of appointment and thereafter he joined in his duty outside the State, part cause of action arose in the State of Odisha, and accordingly in view of the provision contained under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the present Writ Petition is maintainable before this Court. 4.1. Learned Sr.Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 711. Hon’ble Apex Court in para 6 of the said decision has held as follows : Page 6 of 11 // 7 // 6. It is well settled that the expression “cause of action” means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [ILR (1889) 16 Cal 98, 102 : 15 IA 156] Lord Watson said: “… the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.” Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the the Calcutta High Court had instant case jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. 4.2. Reliance was also placed to the decision rendered in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. so cited supra. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-9,10,& 11 of the said judgment has held as follows: 9. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not Page 7 of 11 // 8 // apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC shall apply the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts. to 10. Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. 11. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [(1887-88) 15 IA 156] it was held: (IA pp. 157-58) “The cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.” 4.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was offered with the letter of appointment while residing in the State of Orissa as a Constable in CISF and while continuing as such, he was removed from service, part cause of action arose in the State of Orissa and accordingly in view of the provisions contained under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of Page 8 of 11 // 9 // India, this Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the Writ. It is accordingly contended that the Writ Petition is very much maintainable and the same be decided on merit. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was proceeded with in the proceeding while continuing as a Constable in CISF Unit, IOC, Panipat. The proceeding was initiated by the Commandant CISF Unit, IOC Panipat. 5.1. It is also found that the order of removal was passed by Opp. Party No.5 with his office at Panipat in the State of Haryana. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected vide order under Annexure-5 by the Dy. Inspector of General, CISF NCR Zonal HQRs., New Delhi and the Revision was rejected by Opp. Party No.3 NCR Sector CISF, New Delhi. 5.2. This Court after going through the materials available on record finds that Petitioner while serving as a Constable in CISF Unit, IOC, Panipat, was proceeded Page 9 of 11 // 10 // with in the proceeding and order of removal was passed by the authority having his office at Panipat in the State of Haryana. 5.3. Petitioner while in employment as a Constable in CISF Unit, IOC, Panipat, was removed from his service vide order dt.23.11.2020 under Annexure-4, so confirmed vide order under Annexures-5 & 6 and no document has been enclosed in the Writ Petition showing that Petitioner was provided with the order of appointment while residing in the State of Orissa. Therefore, as per the considered view of this Court, no cause of action arose for entertaining the Writ Petition before this Court. The decisions relied on by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as per considered view of this Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5.4. In that view of the matter, this Court placing reliance on the decisions cited by the learned DSGI and more particularly the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh, is of the view that Page 10 of 11 // 11 // against the impugned order passed under Annexure-4, further confirmed under Annexures-5 & 6, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the same. Therefore, while not entertaining the Writ Petition on the ground of maintainability, dispose of the same by giving liberty to the Petitioner to move the appropriate Court of law against the impugned orders. 5.5. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of as not maintainable, with the aforesaid liberty. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 12th August, 2025/sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 18-Aug-2025 15:25:48 Page 11 of 11