9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness Development), Goa Shipyard Ltd. (GSL). Sir, I am directed to convey the approval of the Competent Authority for termination of contract of Cmde P.K. Srivastava, Director (Corporate Planning Project & Business Development) in Goa Shipyard Ltd. with immediate effect, on payment of three month‟s salary in lieu of three months‟ notice. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Sadhna Khanna) Deputy Secretary (NS) Tel: 2301 8967 Copy to:- 1. Establishment Officer, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi w.r.t. OM No.12/6/2015-EO (ACC) dated 21/10/2015. 2. Secretary, PESB, New Delhi 3. Secretary, DPE, New Delhi 4. Secretary (DP) 5. PS to RM/PS to RRM 6. Cmde P.K. Srivastava, Director (Corporate Planning Project & Business Development), GSI 7. IF (DP-II) 8. D (Coord/DDP) 9. D (Vigillance) Letter dated 28.10.2015 CONFIDENTIAL GSL/04(O)-50537 28 Oct 2015 Cmde P K S Shrivastava, Director (CPP&BD) Goa Shipyard Ltd Goa Sub: Termination of Services Contract of Cmde PKS Shrivastava, D (CPP&BD) 1. Refer to the following:- i) MoD letter No. 2(10)/2009-GSL/D (SY) dated 20 Jun 2012 and 21 Aug 2012 regarding appointment of Cmde P K S Shrivastava, as Director (CPP&BD) ii) MoD letter 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are paras 19 to 27, and which paras read as under: "19. In Kusum Ingots' case the company, having its registered office at Mumbai obtained and was granted a loan from the Bhopal branch of the State Bank of India. The Bank issued a notice for re-payment of loan from Bhopal, foundation of which notice was the Securitizations and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, vires of which was challenged by the company by filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court; pleading jurisdiction on the fact that the legislation was promulgated in Delhi. In paragraph 19 of its decision, the Supreme Court held: 'Passing of a legislation by itself in our opinion does not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefor.' In the next paragraph, para 20, it was observed: 'A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining the said question'. 20. Thus, a reading of para 19 and 20 of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots' case (supra) makes it clear that the taking of the execution decision/action is the cause of action and the place wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In other words, orders and instructions which are in the nature of law would be distinct from decisions and orders which though executive in nature but are not akin to a law. 26. Since the impugned decision on the file, recorded in the minute books of the board of the first respondent, was taken at the registered office of the first respondent at Delhi, it would be a case where part cause of action has arisen in Delhi for the reason the perceived wrong by the appellant is the decision in question and apart from other grounds violation of principles of natural justice while taking the decision has been pleaded. The omission to give the hearing would therefore be required to be treated as an act of omission in Delhi. 27. Though jurisdiction may not be vested in this Court on account of the sole reason that the registered office of the employer i.e. the first respondent is at Delhi, but for the reasons above given and facts above noted, jurisdiction would vest in Delhi because a vital part of the cause of action i.e. the decision to terminate the service of the appellant was taken by the Board of the first respondent at Delhi and minuted in the Minute Book maintained at Delhi." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned. 15. In Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab a Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the effect of an order passed by a Minister on a file, which order was not communicated to the person concerned. Referring to the Article 166(1) of the Constitution, the Court held that order of the Minister could not amount to an order by the State Government unless it was expressed in the name of the Rajpramukh, as required by the said Article and was then communicated to the party concerned. The court observed that business of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large number of officials and authorities. Before an action is taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh, which formality is a constitutional necessity, nothing done would amount to an order creating rights or casting liabilities to third parties. It is possible, observed the Court, that after expressing one opinion about a particular ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment file is communicated to the aggrieved person at a particular place, then, at that place where the communication is done, a cause of action can be said to have arisen and not at the place where the order is passed on the file because a non-communicated order passed at a place where such order is lying in the file is not an actionable order creating a right or liability. The order dated 27.10.2015 has not been directly communicated to the petitioner because the order which is communicated to the petitioner is the order dated 28.10.2015 and which has been issued to the petitioner at Goa and where he performed his services with the respondent no.2/Goa Shipyard Ltd. Therefore, it is held that if without communication of an order to the concerned person no right arises in favour of the Government and no liability accrues against an employee that his services stand terminated, and hence cause of action will only be therefore complete for filing of judicial proceedings on communication and therefore the place where the communication is made would be the place where the territorial jurisdiction would exist, although the order of may have been passed elsewhere i.e Delhi in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) and proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows: (a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole cause of action emerges at the place or location where the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to entertain the writ petition as that would amount to failure of the duty of the Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the concept of forum conveniens. (b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. (supra) (c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
