SRINAGAR: Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination order issued to an erstwhile Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) member. Shahnawaz Ahmad, a resident of Chawlgam in Kulgam had challenged the termination order on the grounds of being unauthorisedly absent from duty.
The petitioner, serving CRPF since 1995, had applied for 15 days of casual leave with effect from September 18, 2000, which was sanctioned. However, during the leave period, he claimed he was kidnapped by unidentified masked gunmen from his native village and subjected to torture, impacting his nervous system. As a result, he was unable to return to duty and, subsequently, was declared a ‘deserter’ under the CRPF Act.
The petitioner contended that the termination order was arbitrary, passed without following due procedure and violating principles of natural justice. He asserted that there was no intention on his part to overstay the leave and that the order was passed without his knowledge or participation in the enquiry.
The CRPF, in response, stated that the petitioner had failed to report for duty despite being directed to do so, and thus, committed an act of disobedience amounting to misconduct under the CRPF Act. The respondents further explained that an enquiry was conducted, providing the petitioner ample opportunities to participate, but he failed to respond, leading to the issuance of the termination order.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, after hearing arguments from both sides, upheld the respondents’ preliminary objection regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. He clarified that the facts mentioned in the petition did not constitute a cause of action within the territorial limits of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, as the orders in question were passed and actions were taken outside its jurisdiction. The dismissal orders were issued by Commandant of 134 Battalion CRPF at Gulzarbagh Patna, Bihar on July 31, 2001.
The Court emphasised that the knowledge of the termination order while the petitioner was in Kashmir did not confer jurisdiction to entertain the case. It was stated that the facts related to termination and enquiry were the decisive factors in determining the court’s jurisdiction, and in this case, they all occurred outside Jammu and Kashmir.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with the law if desired.
