Hari Lal Agrawal, J.

1. When this writ application was taken up for admission, the counsel for the Union of India raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of the application in this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. We therefore, heard the learned Counsel for both the parties on this question at some length and are accordingly disposing of the question.

2. The petitioner Nand Kishore Singh was working as a security guard in the Central Industrial Security Force at Farakka Barrage Project Unit (West Bengal). From there he was transferred to Naya Nangal Unit in the State of Punjab in the year 1980. At that place he was served with a charge sheet on 4-4-1981 by respondent No. 4 Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force who passed a final order dated 30-11-1981 which is annexure 20 to this writ application. Respondent No. 4 held the petitioner guilty of the charges and passed order of his dismissal from the service with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the higher authority within the stipulated period if he so desired. Undisputedly this order was served upon the petitioner at Naya Nangal and he was released from the Unit on the same day. Thereafter he returned to his village home in the district of Aurangabad in this State. From that place he filed an appeal in the form of a representation on 9-12-1981 before the respondent No. 3 namely the D.I.G. (North West Region) Central Industrial Security Force Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, who dismissed the same by his order dated 30-1-1982 (Annexure-1).

3. Earlier to the present application the petitioner had filed a writ application in the Punjab and Haryana High Court (C.W.P. No. 5028 of 1981) against the show cause notice dated 19-10-1981 (Annexure-17). That writ application was however, dismissed in limine as being premature by the order dated 6-11-1981 (Annexure 18) with a direction to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice.

4. Mr. R.K. Sinha contends that this Court has jurisdiction in as much as part of the cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court also within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. No doubt according to the provisions as contained in the said Article the power conferred by Clause (1) to issue direction, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority of the residence of such person is not within those territories, the crucial question is as to whether on the facts as stated above it can be said that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. We have stated that the petitioner was posted at Naya Nangal in State of Punjab where the departmental proceeding had been initiated and the impugned order of his dismissal was passed. It is also clear that the order was served upon the petitioner at that very place and he was relieved from his service. The transaction of termination of the petitioners employment was in our opinion, fully complete far away in the State of Punjab, It may well be, that if the effect of the impugned order would have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court then this Court certainly would have got the jurisdiction. But it has been argued that notwithstanding those facts, the incidence of the preference of the appeal by the petitioner from his village home and the communication of the result of the appeal at the same address would constitute a part of the cause of action within meaning of Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on several decisions, First of all he placed reliance on the case of W.W. Joshi V/s. State of Bombay -- . In that ca