( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of Discharge passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30-4-1994 discharging the petitioner from services and also the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28-7-1994. A detailed counter is filed by the respondents contending that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, in the sense that neither the original authority nor the appellate authority are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. The respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in support of their contention reported in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs. Union of India and another and also a judgment of this Court reported in Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. East India commercial Company, Limited. As against these judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of the High Court of Karnataka reported in Dr. P. S. Rao vs. The Union Government and others and another judgment in D. L. Suresh Babu and others vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and others. He elaborated the argument contending that the impugned order of discharge is served on the petitioner on his address at Guntur in andhra Pradesh. Therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction. He further submitted that at any rate, a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court since the petitioner has been residing at Guntur and he has also received the impugned order on his address at Guntur.

( 2 ) IT is no doubt true that the two judgments of the High Court of Karnataka support the contention of the petitioner partly. In the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Mysore (later renamed as High Court of Karnataka) [supra (3) cited] it is held that, that Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed by the petitioner who was working at Bangalore by holding the post of Head of Utilisation Research at the Forest research Laboratory, Bangalore, even though the petitioner questioned the order of Director of Biological Institute, Dehradun. The learned Judges of the division Bench analysed the concept of "cause of action". By noticing that article 226 of the Constitution of India does not mention cause of action, it observed that an analogy could be sought from Section 20 (c) of Civil Procedure code and on that basis they concluded that the petitioner therein working as Head of Utilisation Research at Forest Research Laboratories, Bangalore, could maintain the writ petition before that Court since a part of cause of action did arise at Bangalore. In this judgment, the High Court of Karnataka took note of the fact that the office where the petitioner was working was the one under the control of the Government of India and as such a part of cause of action arose in Bangalore. The later judgment reported in D. L. Suresh babu and others vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and others (supra 4 cited) following the earlier Division Bench judgment reported in dr. P. S. Rao vs. The Union Government and others (supra 3 cited) held that if a person was residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, could maintain a Writ Petition. In that case, the petitioners were the Chartered Accountants having residence at Bangalore and they filed nominations to the Central and regional Councils of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, which had its Head Office at Delhi and the petitioners sent their nominations by registered Post to Delhi from Bangalore, and those nominations being rejected, they filed the writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned single Judge held that a part of cause of action arose in Bangalore and therefore, those Chartered Accountants could maintain writ petition. In the detailed analysis of both the judgments, I find that the earlier judgment of the Division bench of High Court of Mysore took into consideration of the fact that the petitioner was working in a branch office, the head off