Dismissed

Noufal D v. the Director General Crpf

Kerala HC7 Feb 2018WP(C)/2800/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging termination of service orders for CRPF constables were dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The judge held that since the appointing and terminating authorities were based in Pune, no integral part of the cause of action arose in Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with liberty to petitioners to approach the appropriate forum.

Noufal D Vs the Director General Crpf — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2800 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

NOUFAL D AGED 23 YEARS, NO.175256688 RT/GD, S/O. DILSHAD S., PAKKULAM ATTARIKATHU VEEDU, SOORYAKANTHI, THENOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 563.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.M.KABANI DINESH

¶9

SRI.C.R.RAMESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF CRPF, BLOCK NO.1, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

¶12

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF A-1 WING, 3RD FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 611.

¶13

3. DEPUTY INSEPCTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE, CRPF, TALEGAON, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA - 410 507.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2018, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.2856/2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 2800 of 2018 (Y)

¶18

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25.10.2017. EXHIBIT P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CERTIFICATE (AS PER I.A.NO.2227/2018). EXHIBIT P1(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD FOR MEDICAL EXHIBIT P1(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE PET ,PST RESULTS IN APPENDIX B FORMAT ISSUED BY COMMANDANT GC PPM. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30.10.2017 IN CRL. M.C.7066/2017 EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 27.12.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 02.11.2017

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL ------------------------------

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA J.

------------------------------------

¶25

W.P.(C).Nos.2800 & 2856 of 2018

¶26

------------------------------------ Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2018

¶27

Petitioners, in both these cases, were selected

¶28

and appointed as Constables in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). After completion of the training, they reported for duty before the 3^rd respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Pune on 05.04.2017. While working in the respective posts, their services were terminated, as per order dated 25.10.2017, produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C).No.2800 of 2018 and as per order dated 14.10.2017, produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C).No.2856 of 2018, issued under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965.

¶29

The petitioners submit that the said

¶30

termination is on receipt of reports on verification of their character and antecedents. Criminal case was pending against both the petitioners at the time when

¶31

W.P.(C).Nos.2800 & 2856 of 2018 2

¶32

they joined service. In both the cases, they have settled the matter by filing Crl.M.C before this Court. However, when they appeared for the selection those crime cases were pending. In the questionnaire which has to be filled up, they gave wrong answers.

¶33

The orders of termination are under challenge in these writ petitions, pointing out that they have approached the Director General submitting appeals against the orders of termination.

¶34

The learned ASGI points out that the orders of termination have been issued by the Commandant, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Pune. Petitioners were also appointed by the respondents at Pune and they were working in Pune. Therefore, it is pointed out that this Court does not have the jurisdiction under Article 226 (2) of Constitution of India to entertain these writ petitions.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶36

points out that the proceedings for selection

¶37

W.P.(C).Nos.2800 & 2856 of 2018 3

¶38

commenced within the jurisdiction of this Court and that verification reports based on which their services are terminated were received by the respondents from places within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore part of cause of action arose in Kerala and the writ petitions are therefore liable to be entertained. It is also pointed out that these writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to the appellate authority to consider their appeals.

¶39

However, when the orders of termination are issued by the respondents, who are at Pune, while the petitioners were working at Pune and they were even appointed by officials at Pune, I am unable to accept the contention that part of cause of action arose in Kerala. Petitioners are challenging the orders of termination issued by the Commandant whose office is away from the jurisdiction of this Court. The appeals are also submitted before the 1^st respondent, who is also not having any office within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶40

W.P.(C).Nos.2800 & 2856 of 2018

¶41

¶42

In the above circumstances, in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Registrar, Indian Maritime University, Chennai v. K.G.Viswanathan [2014(4) KHC 451], where this Court has held that writ petition is maintainable only if integral part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, I find that these writ petitions cannot be entertained before this Court. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum.

¶43

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶44

Noufal D v. the Director General Crpf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noufal D v. the Director General Crpf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.T.K. Bridgit Vs Dr. S. Leenakumari

Dr. Usha K.E. Vs Dr. S. Leenakumari

Mr.Saidu Muhammed Vs Kothamangalam Municipality, Rep. by Its Secretary

Sathyanirmala P. Vs Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

Rajan C.A. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Abhilash.a Vs State of Kerala