J&K HC Dismisses SSB Constable’s Termination Challenge, As All Disciplinary Proceedings Took Place In West Bengal

In brief

The question

Whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226(2), where the petitioner relied on receiving the impugned orders and communications at his residence in Jammu and Kashmir, but the material events occurred in West Bengal.

The court held

The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to determine the merits of the writ petition.

It also directed

The Court dismissed it as not maintainable on that ground, leaving the petitioner free to pursue remedies before the competent forum.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) constable posted in West Bengal, took sanctioned casual leave from 23 November to 13 December 2009 but did not report back, which the respondents treated as 363 days of unauthorised absence.

pp. 2–5

The respondents stated that they conducted a Court of Inquiry, declared him a deserter, issued a show-cause notice, and terminated his service with effect from 12 December 2010.

pp. 2–5

The petitioner challenged the termination, alleging that illness prevented his return and that the prescribed procedure had not been followed.

pp. 2–5

The respondents objected, among other grounds, that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the relevant events occurred in West Bengal.

pp. 2–5

The Court addressed territorial jurisdiction as the threshold issue and did not examine the merits of the termination.

pp. 6–7, 10

02Issues

i.Whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226(2), where the petitioner relied on receiving the impugned orders and communications at his residence in Jammu and Kashmir, but the material events occurred in West Bengal.

pp. 6–7, 10

03Law Applied

Article 226(2) of the Constitution permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territory.

p. 7

In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711, the Supreme Court explained that “cause of action” comprises the bundle of facts a petitioner must establish to obtain relief; territorial jurisdiction is assessed from the pleaded facts, without determining their truth at that stage.

pp. 7–8

The Court also relied on Singara Singh v. Union of India, 2019 (4) JKJ [HC] 222, and Narender Kumar v. Union of India, SWP No. 2912/2010, for the principle that receipt of an order or communication within the territory is merely consequential and does not confer jurisdiction when no integral or material part of the cause of action arose there.

pp. 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 Section 11 Section 10 Section 74 Section 20

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner’s posting, expiry of leave, alleged unauthorised absence, Court of Inquiry, declaration of desertion, and termination all occurred in West Bengal.

p. 9

The petitioner relied on service of the orders and notices at his Jammu and Kashmir residence, but the Court held that receipt was only consequential and not an integral part of the cause of action. Applying Article 226(2) and the cited precedents, it concluded that no material part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.

pp. 9–10