HC dismisses CRPF constable’s plea against removal for want of territorial jurisdiction

01/03/2026

JAMMU, Feb 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by a CRPF constable challenging his removal from service, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdic-tion to entertain the matter.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while delivering a detailed judgment in SWP No. 1245/2007 titled Noshad Ahmed vs Union of India & Ors., ruled that no material part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the High Court at Jammu and therefore the petition was not maintainable.
The petitioner, Noshad Ahmed, a resident of Village Harni Gulhuta, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch, had challenged the order dated August 29, 2006, issued by the Commandant, 127 Battalion CRPF, whereby he was removed from service. He also sought quashing of the appellate order dated November 14, 2006 passed by the Deputy Inspector General and the revisional order dated May 16, 2007 passed by the Inspector General.
Appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Surinder Kour, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Michael Singh Dogra, contended that the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules and the principles of natural justice. It was argued that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself, that the enquiry was vitiated, and that a joint enquiry against him and another constable was not conducted in accordance with law.
On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Suman Sudan, Advocate, appearing vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. He submitted that the alleged incident of misconduct, the enquiry proceedings, the removal order, and the rejection of appeal and revision had all taken place outside Jammu and Kashmir - in New Delhi, Jalandhar and Chandigarh - and therefore the High Court at Jammu lacked territorial jurisdiction.
After examining the record, the Court observed that the alleged misconduct occurred in New Delhi, the removal order was passed there, the statutory appeal was rejected at Jalandhar, and the revision petition was dismissed at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the petitioner received copies of the impugned orders at his residential address in Poonch did not confer jurisdiction upon the High Court.
Relying upon settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, the Court held that residence of the petitioner or service of an order within a particular territory does not by itself constitute a part of the cause of action unless it has a direct and substantial nexus with the dispute.
Justice Nargal concluded that since the entire disciplinary proceedings - from issuance of the charge sheet to dismissal and rejection of appeal and revision - had taken place outside the territorial limits of Jammu and Kashmir, no cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The Court, however, clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from approaching the appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction, and that the period spent before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court would not prejudice him in pursuing remedies before the competent forum.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty