manish purohit vs NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE on 1 October 2026

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

The present order shall decide the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Bench over the matter involved in the OA challenging the charge sheet issued against the applicant.

2. As per the case, the applicant, a Scientist-B in the National Informatics Centre (NIC), Rajasthan State, was posted at the NIC Cell, High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur. During his posting there, he remained absent for some period. Thereafter, he was transferred from the NIC Cell, High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, to the NIC Rajasthan State Centre, Jaipur and was directed to report for duty at the Administration Section, NIC, Jaipur, for further posting, vide order dated 22.09.2021. He was relieved on 23.09.2021, however, he did not join at his new place of posting.

2.1 For his absence, a memorandum dated 12.10.2023 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, was issued to him with the allegation that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty despite repeated instructions to join duty. Being aggrieved by the said memorandum, the applicant has challenged the above memorandum by filing the present OA.

3. As per the preliminary objection raised by the respondents in their reply since the charge-sheet was issued by NIC, Delhi and the applicant had already been transferred and posted in the office of NIC, Rajasthan State Centre, Jaipur, the OA is not maintainable before this Bench for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Rajendra Choudhary

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, in the present matter, the cause of action arose with the issuance of the memorandum dated 12.10.2023. Before that, the applicant had already been relieved on 23.09.2021 from the NIC Cell, High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, after being relieved from NIC Cell, High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, the applicant was not allowed to join at Jaipur. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted copies of various communications whereby requests were made to the State Informatics Centre, NIC, Jaipur, to allow him to join. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant cannot be treated as having been posted at Jaipur. He further submitted that the cause of action in the matter arose when the applicant was posted at the NIC Cell, Jodhpur. Therefore, the applicant has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Bench.

6.1. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following judicial verdicts in his support.

(i) Ram Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., Special Appeal No. 110 of 2025: AHC: 68589-DB.

(ii) Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7470 of 2021 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.

(iii) Kishan Lal Jat v. Union of India & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8253 of 2024 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur..

(iv) Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. (1994) SUPP. 1 SCR Supreme Court Reports.

Rajendra Choudhary

(v) Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors. 2006 SUPP.3 Supreme Court Reports.

(vi) Alchemist Limited & Anr. v. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors. , 2007(4) Supreme Court Reports.

(vii) Balram Singh v. Union of India & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6399 of 2019 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur.

(viii) Naval Kishore Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7414 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19549 of 2013.

(ix) Bajrang & Devendra Singh Parihar v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24344 of 2025 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.

6.2 In the matter of Alchemist Limited and another versus State Bank of Sikkim and others (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner/appellant, would or would not, constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such facts constitute a material, essential or integral part of cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit or writ petition. Nevertheless, it must be a part of cause of action, nothing less than that.

6.3 In the matter of Naval Kishore Sharma versus Union of India and other (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, in order to maintain the writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial jurisdiction of the court's jurisdiction.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Shri Ram, V/S union of India,

Rajendra Choudhary

decided on 12.05.2026, wherein this Tribunal held that, in the disciplinary proceedings cause of action normally arises with the occasion of action, which arises at the time of initiating the disciplinary proceedings.

8. After taking into consideration the principles enunciated in various decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that, in the facts of the present matter, cause of action arose with the issuance of the memorandum dated 12.10.2023 on which date the applicant had already been relieved from Jodhpur pursuant to his transfer order to Jaipur.

8.1 It is pertinent to note that the challenge made by him against the transfer order had already been dismissed by this Tribunal. The DB Civil Writ Petition No. 18338/2024 filed by the applicant before Rajasthan High Court was also dismissed on 8.11.2024.

8.2 The controversy with regard to not allowing him to join at Jaipur is totally different, but it is an undisputed fact that the applicant did not comply with the transfer order for a long period. The copies of the representations filed by the applicant regarding the request to allow him to join duties were made only in the year 2025-26.

8.3 According to Rule 6 of the CAT Procedure Rules, 1987, the application under the Administrative Tribunals Act can be filed before the Bench within whose jurisdiction he is either posted for the time being or cause of action wholly or partly arose. In the present matter, the applicant does not fulfill either of the conditions. He is neither posted at Jodhpur nor has any part of cause of action arisen within the jurisdiction of this Bench.

Rajendra Choudhary

8.4 No cause of action be said to have arisen before issuance of the charge sheet in the present matter. The fact of remaining absent by itself cannot be treated as a cause for filing of the OA. The cause of action arose after the issuance of the memorandum dated 12.10.2023 only. Prior to issuance of the impugned memorandum, there was no occasion for the applicant to seek the specific relief claimed in the present OA. Upon perusal of the relief sought by the applicant in the OA, it is clear that the applicant had challenged the memorandum dated 12.10.2023, whereby disciplinary proceedings were started against the applicant, whereas disciplinary proceedings ordinarily start with the issuance of the charge sheet and not before that. The Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar (supra) held that part of cause of action to challenge the charge sheet arose at Jodhpur because the petitioner was posted there when the charge sheet was served. 8.5 In view of the above, no cause of action has arisen to the applicant within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 8.6 The preliminary objection raised by the respondents is sustained. The office is directed to return the application to the applicant after keeping a copy of the same, for presenting the same before the appropriate forum. The time spent in pursuing the present application before this bench may be excluded while calculating the period of limitation.

(Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEΕΝΑ) (RAMESHWAR VYAS) MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)

RC/-

Rajendra Choudhary