Rajnish Kumar Rai, Ips (Retd) vs Union Of India on 1 May, 2023
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7133 of 2023
Facts
In the instant case the petitioner was serving under the Indian Police Service (IPS). He joined service in 1992 itself and was originally allotted to the Odisha Cadre. Subsequently, in 1997, his cadre was changed to Gujarat. While he was posted as the IG in Shillong, the concerned officer informed the petitioner that at night two persons purported to be of the NDFB(S) cadre were killed in a village in an alleged fake encounter. Arms, ammunition and explosives were also recovered from them. The encounter was carried out in a joint operation of the Assam Police, the Indian Army, the CRPF. He, therefore, duly informed the Additional director general of police about this operation and to the other competent authority as per the practice.
The petitioner was then transferred to Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against him in the matter of the fake encounter by the respondent and he made a representation. However, as no response was received from the concerned respondent, the petitioner filed a suit in the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi challenging his transfer to Chittoor and also the institution of preliminary inquiry against him in the matter of the fake encounter. However, the Tribunal, Principal Bench dismissed the said OA on the ground that the grievance in respect of his transfer had become infructuous since he had had joined his new post. Further, since no order initiating any preliminary inquiry had been placed on record the Tribunal could not take cognizance of the newspaper reports. The petitioner alleged that his advocate withdrew the OA filed on his behalf without his consent as a result of which he filed a review application. However, the review application was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the OA as well as Review Application filed by him, the petitioner challenged the same before the Delhi High Court through a writ petition. During the pendency of the said proceedings before Delhi High Court, a show cause notice was served to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a Civil Misc. Application in the pending writ petition and requested to stay the show cause notice. The respondents also filed Civil Misc. Application praying for vacating the interim relief.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner and observed that the issuance of show cause notice is a fresh cause of action and thereby granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievance with the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal in Ahmedabad challenging the issuance of the show cause notice. In the said proceedings, the tribunal, dismissed the said application.
The petitioner, thereafter, filed Review Application No.1 of 2023 before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench and pointed out the relevant provisions of law. The Tribunal dismissed the said review application which is why the petitioner has filed a writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat.
The petitioner’s advocate counsel contended that the cause of action mainly arises when the legal right claimed by the petitioner has, prima facie, been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondents within the territorial limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof. He thereby drew a correlation and contended that in the present case, the legal right of the petitioner, prima facie, had been infringed by an act of service of show cause notice
The solicitor general, on the other hand contended that the petitioner had not stated anything more with regard to jurisdiction of the Tribunal except that the redressal he is seeking lies before the said tribunal
Judgement
The Court searched rigorously to trace how the cause of action had been deemed to arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. However, it didn’t find any suitable logic. Hence, looking at the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was of the view that the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench had not committed any error while dismissing the application and the review application filed by the petitioner and therefore no interference was required in the present petition. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
