2018:UHC:11003-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. RAVINDRA MAITHANI AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition Service Bench No. 355 of 2014 26th August, 2025 Manoj Kumar Gupta …………..Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others ...…..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent no.1. Mr. D. Barthwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. The challenge in this petition is mainly made to the following: (i) The enquiry report dated 12.07.2010 submitted by the Inquiring Authority, State Bank of India, Vigilance Department, Local Head Office, Bhadra, Ahmedabad. (ii) Order of dismissal dated 29.07.2010 passed by the Appointing Authority/Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Officer, Bhadra, Ahmadabad. (iii) Order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. At the very outset, this Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how this Court has 2018:UHC:11003-DB 2 territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was serving as Chief Manager at the Salabatpura, Surat Branch of the State Bank of India during the relevant period for which he was chargesheeted and dismissed. The disciplinary proceedings as well as the impugned action were carried out within the State of Gujarat. 5. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that this is an admitted petition. 6. The petitioner was chargesheeted when he was working as a Chief Manager within the State of Gujarat. He was working in the State Bank of India Branch, Salabatpura, Surat. He was chargesheeted for acts committed by him during his tenure as Chief Manager and dismissed from service in the State of Gujarat. Accordingly, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent court for redressal of his grievances. 8. This Court has no doubt that in case the petitioner approaches the competent court, the time undertaken by the petitioner in this Court shall also be taken into consideration. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Alok Mahra, J.) Dated: 26.08.2025 Mamta 2018:UHC:11003-DB 3