# / v. Bhim Yadav - **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 355 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-04-21 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 519 of 2004 - **Bench:** Vijay Manohar Sahai, Raj Mani Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/v-bhim-yadav-41480 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik Sri Jokhan Prasad Sri P.K. Misra Sri V.B. Shukla Sri I.R. Singh Central Reserved Police Force Act 1949Section 11 (1)-read with Central Reserved Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule 27-dismissal order passed in State of West Bengal-service of impugned order or mere residing of petitioner in U.P.- validity of such order can not be adjudicated by High Court Allahabadjudgment by Single Judge without jurisdiction-objection if writ not maintainable appeal should also goes to same fate-misconceived-petition dismissed. Held: Para 4 Having given our anxious consideration to the question, we are of the considered opinion that since the removal order and 356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 appellate orders were passed in the State of West Bengal, Allahabad High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the writ petition filed by the respondent or even to entertain it. In this view of the matter, the order of learned Single Judge cannot be maintained. Case law discussed: 1999(4) AWC 2908, 2010(2) AWC 1293, 2010(3) ADJ 433 DB, 2004 (4) ESC 2312 FB (Allahabad). ## Text 1 All] Union of India and others V. Bhim Yadav 355 Director, Medical and Health Services, Agra Division (Respondent No. 4) placed the petitioners and others on different posts in different districts of Agra Division. 30. Since the petitioners opted to remain government servants and they did not opt to be posted on deputation in the new institution. Therefore, they were sent back to their parental department i.e. Health Department of U.P. Government. The petitioners who did not opt to be posted in the new institution on deputation cannot be posted there on deputation against their option. The society of the new institution too cannot be forced to retain those petitioners who were the government servants and did not opt to be posted on deputation in the new institution. 31. In view of the discussions hereinabove mentioned we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be treated to be employees of the new institution namely Mansik Swasthya Sansthan Evam Chiktsalaya, Agra. Therefore, they cannot be thrushted on the new institution against the wishes of the society. 32. The learned Single Judge did not take into consideration of this fact while allowing the writ petition of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2003 is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 33. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 23.09.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48859 of 2002 is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J. THE HON'BLE RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, J. Special Appeal No. 519 of 2004 Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of Home New, Delhi and others ...Appellants/Applicants Versus Bhim Yadav ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Subodh Kumar Sri Udit Chandra S.C. Counsel for the Opposite Party: Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik Sri Jokhan Prasad Sri P.K. Misra Sri V.B. Shukla Sri I.R. Singh Central Reserved Police Force Act 1949Section 11 (1)-read with Central Reserved Police Force Rules, 1955-Rule 27-dismissal order passed in State of West Bengal-service of impugned order or mere residing of petitioner in U.P.- validity of such order can not be adjudicated by High Court Allahabadjudgment by Single Judge without jurisdiction-objection if writ not maintainable appeal should also goes to same fate-misconceived-petition dismissed. Held: Para 4 Having given our anxious consideration to the question, we are of the considered opinion that since the removal order and 356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 appellate orders were passed in the State of West Bengal, Allahabad High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the writ petition filed by the respondent or even to entertain it. In this view of the matter, the order of learned Single Judge cannot be maintained. Case law discussed: 1999(4) AWC 2908, 2010(2) AWC 1293, 2010(3) ADJ 433 DB, 2004 (4) ESC 2312 FB (Allahabad). (Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.) 1. We have heard Sri Udit Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri I.R.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner under section 11(1) of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. After departmental proceedings the writ petitioner was removed from service. The removal order was passed on 7.4.1999 at Durgapur, West Bengal. He challenged the removal order in appeal before the appellate authority at Kolkata, West Bengal. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the writ petitioner on 10.6.1999. The removal order as well as the appellate order had been challenged before this court and the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition no.29492 of 1999 vide judgment dated 21.8.2000 and quashed the removal as well as appellate order with all consequential benefits of service to the writ petitioner. 3. In this intra court appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the writ petition before this court was not maintainable and it was maintainable only in the State of West Bengal. He has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this court in Madan Tiwari, constable v. Deputy Inspector General of Police and another 1999(4) AWC 2908, a division bench decision in Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. and others 2010(2) AWC 1293, Director General, C.R.P.F., New Delhi v. Lalji Pandey 2010(3) ADJ 433 DB and Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others 2004 (4) ESC 2312 FB (Allahabad). We have gone through these decisions. In Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) it has been held by the Full Bench that mere permanently residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh would not confer any right on the respondent to challenge the orders passed in the State of West Bengal and the respondent does not get any right on the ground of being resident of Uttar Pradesh to challenge the orders passed in the State of West Bengal before this court, as no part of cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this court or Uttar Pradesh. 4. Having given our anxious consideration to the question, we are of the considered opinion that since the removal order and appellate orders were passed in the State of West Bengal, Allahabad High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the writ petition filed by the respondent or even to entertain it. In this view of the matter, the order of learned Single Judge cannot be maintained. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri I.R. Singh has vehemently urged that the respondent was selected and recruited at Allahabad, but he was in 1 All] Con. 618/946 Rajvir Singh V. State of U.P. and others 357 service at Kolkata when he was removed in service. Therefore, he can challenge the removal order and the appellate order in the State of West Bengal. Even the place of recruitment will not confer any right to challenge the removal order in Allahabad High Court. The cause of action will accrue where the removal order or appellate order had been passed. Sri I.R. Singh has further urged that if the writ petition filed by the respondent was not maintainable, then the Special Appeal filed by Union of India is also not maintainable. This question has been decided by the division bench of this court in Lalji Pandey (supra). Therefore, this argument is devoid of any merits 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21.8.2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29492 of 1999 is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed as being not maintainable. However, the writ petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate legal forum, in the State of West Bengal. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25129 of 2008 Con. 618/946 Rajbeer Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.P. Singh Sri Kashyap Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava Sri Vijay Gautam Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. Constitution of India Art. 226Cancellation of appointment-after 15 years of working on ground-the date of birth mentioned in High School certificate a forged document order passed without giving opportunity to produce original certificate-heldimpugned order quashed with all consequential benefits including salary, seniority from the date dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Held: Para 7 In my opinion, this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have got substance and deserves to be accepted. I am of the considered view that the alleged conduct of the petitioner while entering into service cannot be alleged to be misconduct during service. In service law jurisprudence both the stages are quite distinct and distinguishable, therefore, they should not be intermixed otherwise it will cause serious repercussion in the service law jurisprudence. Further, I have a doubt in the mind that whether such illegal appointment as alleged by the respondent on the basis of alleged forged certificate could be cancelled after long lapse of 15 years from the date of appointment of the petitioner. Further it is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity before passing the order impugned dismissing the petitioner from service. Case law discussed: 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 330, 2002 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 705, (1999) 3 SCC 60, 2008 (7) ADJ 4. (Delivered by Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.