RAM DASS vs UOI.TH.MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ORS.
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 2322/2013
Reserved on: 10.12.2025
Pronounced on: 14.10.2026
Uploaded on: 22.10.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Ram Dass, Age 35 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Lal,
R/o Vill. Bareri, Tehsil Nowshera,
District Rajouri
…. Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mrs. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Michael Singh Dogra, Advocate.
Vs
…..Respondent(s)
1. Union of India,
through Home Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. Director General of SSB,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi
3. Assistant Director (Per-III) SSB,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi
4. Deputy Director (CC) FHQ SSB,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi
5. Assistant Director (Adm),
SSB SHQ, Guwahati.
6. Staff Officer (Admn), SSB (MHA),
R.K. Puram, New Delhi
th
7. Commandant, 34 Bn. SSB,
Hindustan More C/o 56 APO
Through:- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, CGSC
CORAM: HON‟BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, by way of this petition, has challenged the Order No.
th
34 BN/ESTT/SSB/PF(RD)/10/26570-85 dated 12.12.2010/15.12.2010,
vide which the respondents in exercise of power conferred under Sub-
Section (2) of Section 11 of SSB Act, 2007 and Rules 18(ii) of SSB Rule,
SWP No. 2322/2013 1 | P a g e
2009 read with Rule 21 and Section 10 of the Act and Rules have
terminated the service of the petitioner with effect from 12.12.2010 (FN).
2. The petitioner further prays for directions to the respondents to consider
his case for reinstatement on the post of CT/GD, and treat him as duty from
date of his termination till reinstatement along with all consequential effects.
3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as
Constable (GD) in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), joined Group Centre Leh
on 10.09.1999 and was allotted No. 9977561CT/GD. The petitioner
discharged his duties at various places i.e. Srinagar, Sikkim and Himachal
Pradesh, thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and posted in West
Bengal.
th
4. The contention of the petitioner is that while posted at 34 BN
Alipurduar (camp at Hindustan More) of West Bengal, went on 15 days duly
sanctioned casual leave with effect from 23.11.2009 to 13.12.2009 (AN).
During the subsistence of the said leave, the petitioner fell seriously ill on
account of his illness and inability to travel, he requested extension of his
leave on medical grounds. The respondents neither considered his request
nor extended his leave.
5. The respondents, after the expiry of the leave period, treated him as
absent without authority and, without affording him any effective
opportunity of being heard, ultimately declared him a “ deserter ”. It is
submitted that respondents have wrongly declared him as „ deserter’ even
though his absence was solely on account of the serious illness suffered by
him and his whereabouts were within the knowledge of the respondents.
SWP No. 2322/2013 2 | P a g e
6. The petitioner immediately after his recovery presented himself before
the authorities to resume duties but the respondents refused to allow him to
join back. It is submitted that prior to proceeding on casual leave, the
petitioner had also submitted his resignation at that time but the same was
not accepted on the pretext that it was not in the proper form and he was
directed to submit the application in proper form. The respondents, despite
his willingness either to serve or to leave service in accordance with law,
chose to proceed departmentally and to terminate his services.
7. It is further submitted that the respondents, without following the
procedure prescribed under the SSB Act, 2007 and Rules proceeded to
declare him deserter and then terminated his services on 12.12.2010 without
holding any enquiry, and without affording him an opportunity to explain the
reasons for his absence or to produce his medical record in his defence.
8. The grievance of the petitioner that he had completed more than ten
years of service in a para-military force discharging his duty at hard station
to the best of his ability, he could not join after the expirty of his leave due to
his medical condition. The respondents were at least required to consider his
medical condition and could consider discharging him on medical grounds
with disability pension rather than imposing the extreme penalty of
termination from service. The respondents, ignoring his long service, nature
of duties, the hardships at the postings and his medical condition, have
passed the impugned order of termination.
9. It is also averred that the respondents failed to follow proper procedure
i.e. holding court of inquiry in the manner contemplated by the Rules, and
SWP No. 2322/2013 3 | P a g e
without considering his reply have passed the impugned termination order in
a mechanical and arbitrary manner.
10. The respondents have filed objections raising preliminary objections of
maintainability of writ petition inter alia on the ground of territorial
jurisdiction, delay and laches, and disputed questions of facts.
11. According to the respondents, the petitioner was posted at 34 Bn SSB,
Alipurduar (camp at Hindustan More), West Bengal, where he proceeded on
casual leave w.e.f. 23.11.2009 to 13.12.2009 (15 days). After expiry of the
leave period on 13.12.2009 (AN), the petitioner failed to report back for
duties despite prolonged correspondence including letter dated 18.12.2009
calling upon him to resume duty at Bn. Headquarters.
12. It is further submitted that the petitioner remained absent without
authority from 14.12.2009 (FN) to 11.12.2010, i.e., 363 days. A Court of
Inquiry was ordered under Section 74(1) of the SSB Act, 2007 to inquire into
the circumstances of his absence; upon receipt and consideration of the Court
of Inquiry report, the Commandant declared the petitioner a „ deserter’ w.e.f.
14.12.2009 (FN) vide order dated 18.10.2010/20.10.2010 under Section
20(4)(b) and Section 74(2) of the SSB Act, 2007 read with relevant Rules.
13. It is pleaded that thereafter a show cause notice dated 12.11.2010 was
duly served on the petitioner at his known address along with all the relevant
material i.e. Court of Inquiry proceedings and called upon him to submit his
representation/reply within 30 days from issuance, failing which it would be
presumed that he had nothing to urge in defence against the proposed action.
14. The respondents contend that the petitioner failed to submit any reply
or representation to the show cause notice within the stipulated time. The
SWP No. 2322/2013 4 | P a g e
competent authority, after due consideration of the record including the
Court of Inquiry report, the prolonged absence, and the petitioner's non-
response, passed the impugned termination order dated
12.12.2010/15.12.2010 under Section 11(2), Section 20(4)(b) and Section
74(2) of the SSB Act, 2007 read with Rule 18(ii), Rule 21 of SSB Rules,
2009 and Section 10 of the SSB Act, terminating the petitioner's services
w.e.f. 12.12.2010 (FN), treating the absence period as dies non , and directing
recovery of mess cutting and government kit dues from amounts due to him.
15. The respondents assert that the termination was not under Rule 26
(unsuitability) but for willful desertion and prolonged unauthorized absence
under the cited provisions of SSB Act and Rules, and that all mandatory
procedures including communications, Court of Inquiry, deserter declaration,
and show cause opportunity were strictly followed in letter and spirit.
16. The respondents have also submitted that the entire cause of action
arose within the territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal. The posting of the
th
petitioner at 34 Bn SSB Hindustan More, expiry of leave, issuance of
communications, holding of Court of Inquiry, deserter declaration, show
cause notice, and passing of termination order by the Commandant there.
Mere service/communication of the order at the home address of the
petitioner within J&K does not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court,
and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground
alone, besides being barred by unexplained delay of over two years and
raising disputed questions of fact.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
SWP No. 2322/2013 5 | P a g e
18. The respondents have taken a serious objection as to territorial
jurisdiction contending that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition as no part of cause of action has arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent,
on the contrary, has submitted that the respondent has received the
termination order at his residence, thus, part of course of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
19. The main question that arises for consideration before this Court at the
threshold is whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and
decide the present writ petition, in view of the fact that all the material
events, including the passing of the impugned order of termination, took
th
place at 34 Bn SSB, Hindustan More, Alipurduar, West Bengal.
20. For determining this question, it is necessary to examine whether any
part of the cause of action, as pleaded and established by the petitioner, can
be said to have arisen within the territorial limits of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner essentially relies on the
circumstance that the impugned orders and communications were served
upon him at his residence within this Court‟s jurisdiction, whereas the
respondents assert that such service is merely consequential and does not
constitute an integral part of the cause of action.
21. Article 226(2) of the Constitution provides that the power of the High
Court to issue writs may be exercised if the cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction,
notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence
SWP No. 2322/2013 6 | P a g e
of the person against whom the writ is sought is not within those territories.
Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India reads as under: -
“(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 scat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not
within those territories.”
22. The above constitutional provision provides that a High Court can
exercise jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
action wholly or in part arises. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in “ Oil and
Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu”, (1994) 4 SCC 711, has
held as under: -
“5. ........On a plain reading of the aforesaid two clauses of Article
226 of the Constitution it becomes clear that a High Court can
exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of
the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action,
wholly or impart, had arisen within the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the
Government or authority or the residence of the person against
whom the direction, order or writ 'is issued is not within the said
territories.
...
...
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' 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...."
SWP No. 2322/2013 7 | P a g e
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...”
23. From the above, it is clear that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High
Court to entertain a writ petition, the High Court must be satisfied from the
entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action, that at least a part of the
cause has arisen within its jurisdiction to empower it to decide the dispute.
24. The expression “ cause of action ” has been judicially interpreted to
mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. Mere
consequential or incidental facts, which do not form an integral part of the
bundle of essential facts, do not confer jurisdiction.
25. This Court in „Singara Singh vs. Union of India and others‟, 2019
(4) JKJ [HC] 222 , considered the issue of territorial jurisdiction in a case
where the complete disciplinary proceedings, including trial, conviction,
and dismissal of a Border Security Force Constable, occurred outside this
Court's territorial limits. It was observed that the mere communication of
the rejection of a statutory appeal to the petitioner at Jammu does not
confer jurisdiction when no substantive part of the cause of action arises
within this territory. The Court emphasized that the petitioner therein was
posted in West Bengal, tried by the Summary Security Force Court in
West Bengal, and the dismissal order was passed there. Relying on the
settled law that territorial jurisdiction hinges on where the cause of action,
wholly or in part, emerges, the Court held that the place of receipt of a
SWP No. 2322/2013 8 | P a g e
communication is merely consequential and not an integral part of the
cause of action. Consequently, the Court held that since all material events
constituting the cause of action had transpired outside Jammu and
Kashmir, the writ petition was not maintainable for lack of territorial
jurisdiction and was dismissed accordingly.
26. From the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was posted
th
at 34 Bn. SSB, Hindustan More, Alipurduar, West Bengal, where the leave
expired, the alleged unauthorized absence commenced, the Court of Inquiry
was held, the declaration of deserter was issued, and the impugned
termination order was passed. All foundational steps forming the cause of
action thus took place entirely outside the territorial limits of this Court.
27. The only circumstance relied upon by the petitioner to invoke
jurisdiction is that the impugned orders and notices were served upon him at
his residence in Jammu and Kashmir. Such service is only a consequential
fact and does not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. As held in
Singara Singh (supra) , the place where an order is received cannot confer
jurisdiction when all operative events have occurred elsewhere. The cause of
action arises at the place where the authority passed the order and where the
disciplinary proceedings were conducted.
28. In “Narender Kumar v. Union of India”, SWP No. 2912/2010 , this
Court has held as under: -
“16. In the light of the aforesaid propositions of law when the instant case is
examined, it becomes evident that the facts pleaded in the writ petition
do not indicate or demonstrate that the cause of action or part thereof or
even a fraction of cause of action which is integral or material to the lis
between the parties has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. The allegations which have been enquired into by the
respondents pertain to the period when the petitioner was attached with
90 Bn BSF under Sector HQ Roshanbagh Murshidabad (WB). The acts
SWP No. 2322/2013 9 | P a g e
or omissions alleged against the petitioner have been committed outside
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The orders impugned have been
passed by the authorities not located anywhere in Jammu and Kashmir.
Simply because the statutory appeal was filed and order passed by
respondent No.2 in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner has been
conveyed to the petitioner at Jammu is not sufficient to vest the
jurisdiction in this Court to entertain the petition. The communication
issued to the petitioner informing him about the outcome of the appeal
sent to his address in Jammu and Kashmir does not, by any stretch of
reasoning, constitute even a fraction of cause of action integral to the lis
and sufficient enough to clothe this Court with the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain this petition.”
29. Applying the principle laid down in Singara Singh and Narender
Kumar (supra) , this Court finds that no cause of action, or even a part
thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226(2) of the Constitution of India. The residence of the petitioner or the
receipt of the order at his home address cannot, by themselves, vest
jurisdiction in this Court.
30. In view of the above discussion, and keeping in mind the law laid down
by this Court in Singara Singh vs. Union of India , I am of the considered
view that this Court does not possess the jurisdiction to examine the merits
of the present writ petition, as no cause of action has arisen within the
territorial limits of this Court, as such, this writ petition is not maintainable.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue such remedies as may
be permissible in law before the competent forum.
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
Jammu:
14.10.2026
Michal Sharma/PS
Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No
SWP No. 2322/2013 10 |
P a g e