The Court emphasized the need to establish jurisdiction and the requirement to prove mala fide actions, while also highlighting the importance of examining the legality and regularity of the decision-making process in exercising judicial review.

By order dated 01-07-2013, on the prayer made by learned counsel for the parties, it was directed to list this case side-by-side of C.W.J.C. No. 13574 of 2007. However, since in C.W.J.C. No. 13574 of 2007 pleading was incomplete, the present writ petition was heard separately and being disposed of.

2. Heard Sri Gautam Bose, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Vikash Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents/Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”).

3. The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 24-10-2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby, his appeal preferred against the order of Disciplinary Authority was rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of an order dated 19-09-2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Dy. General Manager/Respondent No. 4, whereby, in terms of Regulation 47(1)(b) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, „the next increment due to the petitioner in its substantive grade was directed to be delayed for a period of three years and he be not considered for promotion to any higher post till he draws his next increment? (Annexure ‘3’ to the writ petition). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Annexure ‘2’ to the writ petition, whereby, the same disciplinary authority had reduced the penalty from three years to two years. Of-course, in the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of charge-sheet, issued vide Memo dated 23-11-2004 by respondent no. 4, at the time of hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the same.

4. At the very outset, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the Bank that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. It has been argued that all the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Madhya Pradesh. While the petitioner was posted at Bhopal, he was proceeded departmentally and punishment order was passed and the appellate authority, who was posted at Bhopal, passed the appellate order at Bhopal only and as such, learned counsel for the Bank submits that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Sri Gautam Bose, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that order of the appellate authority dated 21-11-2006 was communicated to the petitioner, while he was posted at Patna itself and as such, Sri Bose specifies that part of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. In support of this argument regarding maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, he has relied upon 2001 (4) PLJR 678 (SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS) as well as 2003 (2) PLJR 151 (RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS). It was submitted that in those cases, order of dismissal was communicated at a place within the State of Bihar and as such, the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such, the writ petition was maintainable before this Court. He further submits that the entire fact is required to be noticed and only then, it can be established as to whether any cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court or not. He has specifically referred to Annexure ‘1? to the writ petition, whereby, the order of the appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner, while he was posted as Assistant Manager (Security) in the Protocol Section, Reserve Bank of India, Patna.

6. In view of the facts & circumstances, the Cour