Service of dismissal and appellate orders at a residence does not confer territorial jurisdiction.

The petitioner, a Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was appointed in June 1996.

Following an incident on the night of December 20, 2005, where he was allegedly involved in a scuffle that injured a senior officer (CHM Kanwar Singh), a joint departmental enquiry was initiated.

On August 29, 2006, the Commandant (127 Bn.) in New Delhi passed an order removing him from service.

The petitioner’s statutory appeal was rejected by the DIG in Jalandhar on November 14, 2006, and his subsequent revision was dismissed by the IG in Chandigarh on May 16, 2007.

The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, primarily on grounds of procedural irregularities under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules and lack of opportunity to defend.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the court's territorial jurisdiction.

1. Whether the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition when the disciplinary proceedings and impugned orders occurred outside its territorial limits.

2. Whether the mere service of the dismissal/appellate orders at the petitioner’s residence within Jammu & Kashmir constitutes a "cause of action" sufficient to vest jurisdiction in this Court.

The court primarily applied Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction only if the cause of action arises, in whole or in part, within its territories.

It relied on the "integral part of cause of action" test established in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994), holding that trivial events do not confer jurisdiction.

Further, it applied the ratio from Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004), which posits that the expression "cause of action" cannot be interpreted liberally to permit forum shopping.

The court also cited Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim (2007), affirming that only facts with a direct nexus to the lis constitute cause of action.

The court followed local precedent Shahnawaz Ahmad vs. Union of India (2023) regarding the jurisdiction of "deserter" terminations.

The court reasoned that since the alleged misconduct occurred in New Delhi, the disciplinary authority (Commandant) was in New Delhi, the appellate authority was in Jalandhar, and the revisional authority was in Chandigarh, no material part of the lis occurred within its jurisdiction.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the service of notice at his residential address in District Poonch (J&K) created a cause of action.

It clarified that "cause of action" refers to facts the petitioner must prove to substantiate his claim, such as the illegality of the enquiry or the order itself—all of which were actions performed by respondents outside J&K.

Drawing from the principle that territorial jurisdiction is not a "mobile privilege" dependent on the petitioner's residence, the court found that allowing the petition would encourage "forum shopping" and contradict legislative intent.

Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition without dwelling on the merits of the disciplinary action.

However, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate territorial forum, directing that the time spent before this Court should not be used to prejudice the fresh filing.

The original record was ordered to be returned to the respondents.