Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Goel v. National Insurance Company Limited

Uttarakhand HC6 May 2025WPSB/363/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an employee of National Insurance Company Ltd., challenged a writ petition against three punishment orders passed at New Delhi. The bench held that the disciplinary authority is stationed in Delhi and the employee was not serving in Uttarakhand during the relevant period. Consequently, the court found it lacked territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

Ashok Kumar Goel Vs National Insurance Company… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:3502-DB

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSB No. 363 of 2016 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.
			Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner, through video conferencing.
			2. Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for the respondent no. 1, through video conferencing. 3. Petitioner was an employee of National Insurance Company Ltd. Three punishment orders were passed against him on 05.11.2015, 06.11.2015 and 18.02.2015 respectively. Petitioner made a representation to the Deputy General Manager, contending that he is not competent to impose the penalties, which were imposed by the aforesaid three orders. His representation was rejected by the Deputy General Manager / Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 02.02.2016. 4. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by Deputy General Manager, on 02.02.2016, and he has also sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to take any action against petitioner, pursuant to the orders dated 05.11.2015, 06.11.2015 and 18.02.2015.
			5. Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company Ltd. has drawn attention of this Court to the pleading made in paragraph no. 3 of the counter affidavit, which is extracted below:- “3-That the impugned order dated 2-2-16 (Annexure no. 6 to the petition) has been passed by the Deputy General Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Jeevan Bharati Building Tower II, Fourth Level, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi- 110001. As such the entire cause of action has arisen in the territory of New Delhi and this Hon'ble Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coal Fields Limited v. Kalyan Banerjee, reported in (2008) 3

¶3

2025:UHC:3502-DB

¶4

SCC 456 held after consideration of several cases that cause of action for the purposes of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India for all intent and purport must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case before the Apex Court, the services of the respondents were terminated at Mugma who had preferred writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. A preliminary objection was raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court held that in view of the decision of the High Court that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma area within the state of Jharkhand only because the head office of the respondent company is situated within the state of West Bengal the same will not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court when the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against the employee.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that since the petitioner was serving in Delhi Region during the period he was chargesheeted, and the punishment orders were also passed by an authority stationed at New Delhi, therefore, no part of cause of action arose in the State of Uttarakhand, therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. 7. This Court finds substance in the said submission. The Disciplinary Authority in respect of the petitioner is the Deputy General Manager, who is stationed at New Delhi. Petitioner was not serving within Uttarakhand for the period he was charged, therefore, we find substance in the objection raised on behalf of the respondent. 8. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. (Ashish Naithani, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 06.05.2025 Navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH NAVEEN COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006d a82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643 CHANDRA AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.05.08 11:14:09 -07'00'

Ashok Kumar Goel v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Goel v. National Insurance Company Limited

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

Madan Gopal Pushkarana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harsh Vardhan Mishra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hansa Dutt Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand Vs Prem Singh Negi

Baboo Singh Shakya Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand through Its Principal Secretary, Vs Markendey Prasad Gupta