HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12682 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 4th October 2025 issued to petitioner under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Other concomitant prayers have also been made. 3. Mr. Sudhanshu Tripathi, learned State Counsel, has raised a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this petition before this court at Lucknow in view of the fact that the impugned charge sheet has been issued in Gorakhpur which does not come within territorial jurisdiction of this court at Lucknow. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Full Bench of this court in the case of Rajendra kumar Mishra versus Union of India, 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108. 4. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that although the impugned charge sheet has been issued by the authority at Gorakhpur, but part cause of action would still accrue before this court at Lucknow in view of the fact that petitioner is residing within its territorial jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on judgments rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma versus Union of India and others, (2014) 9 SCC 329 as well as a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Charitra Pandey, Shashank Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shubham Srivastava (Pno-222320391) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Har Govind Singh versus Union of India, Special Appeal No. 158 of 2016 as well as Bibhuti Narain Singh versus Food Corporation of India, Special appeal defective No. 785 of 2014. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that the impugned charge sheet has been issued by the authority concerned at Gorakhpur. It is also admitted that the aforesaid authority does not come within territorial jurisdiction of this court at Lucknow. 6. Nonetheless the aspect of part cause of action has been raised by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to the residence of petitioner within territorial jurisdiction of this court. So far as reliance on judgment rendered in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma (surpa) is concerned, it is evident that in the aforesaid case, the appellant therein was found medically unfit for duties as a Seamen and therefore an agreement for employment was executed for offshore duty but when on 18th June 2010 he reported sickness, he was considered permanently unfit for sea service, due to which his registration as Seaman was cancelled on 12th April, 2011 whereafter he settled in his native place in Gaya, Bihar and it is from that place where all correspondence between the said appellant and his erstwhile employer took place 7. It is in such circumstances where the appellant therein settled in his native place after cancellation of registration and dispensing with his services as a Seaman that the Supreme Court held that the place of residence would be instrumental for considering part cause of action. 8. Similarly, in the case of Har Govind Singh (supra), it is evident that the order impugned was dated 10th April 2004 dismissing him from service whereafter he started residing at his native place. 9. In the case of Bibhuti Narain Singh (supra), the appellant therein was in service with the Food Corporation of India which is an All India Organization and therefore reliance was placed by Division Bench of this court in the case of Lieutenant Colonel Khajoor Singh versus Union of India, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 532. WRIA No. 12682 of 2025 2 10. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sri Nasiruddin versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671. 11. From perusal of all the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is thus evident that all the petitioners or appellants therein started residing in their native places after dispensing of their services and it is in these circumstances that the place of residence was taken for purposes of part cause of action, since all correspondence between such appellants and the erstwhile employers took place at the native place. 12. In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid judgments would not be of any consequence or come to the aid of petitioner who admittedly is still in service. 13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, evidently the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Sri Nasiruddin (supra) would not be of any consequence since no part cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this court merely on the ground of residence as has been enunciated by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra). 14. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed granting liberty to petitioner to approach this court at Allahabad. October 30, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 12682 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench