JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

“That this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner abovenamed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of certiorari to quash the revisional order dated 3.4.2018 passed in No.V.11014/NES/LC/REV-17/2017 by Inspector General of Police, CISF, NES, HQRS, Kolkata affirming the order dated 28.6.2017 passed in Notification No. 11014/Appeal (D16)AR/LND/OIL(D)/17517 by Deputy Inspector General of Police respondent no. 3 and the original dated 20.1.2017 passed in Notification No. V15014/Major 04/AR/L&D/OIL(D)/2017-567 by Commandant respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner who was working on the post of assistant Sub-Inspector, CISF was dismissed from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment, which orders are illegal and unsustainable. Further, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefit including back wages.”

3. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the dismissal order, appellate authority order and revisional authority orders dated 20.01.2017, 28.06.2017 and 03.04.2018 respectively vide Annexures - 8, 11 and 12.

4. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector with the respondent – Central Industrial Security Force, order of appointment is dated 31.05.2013 and joining of service is 01.11.2013. Petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on three counts of charges and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service and it has been affirmed by both appellate and revisional authority.

5. The preliminary issue in the present matter is whether the present petition is maintainable on the score that petitioner could invoke territorial jurisdiction of this Court or not? Since the petitioner has questioned three orders which are passed by the Officers from the Assam State and Kolkata in West Bengal. The petitioner is a resident of Tekari, District - Gaya, State of Bihar.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a resident of State of Bihar and a copy of the dismissal order, appellate authority’s order and revisional authority’s order were communicated to the petitioner under the jurisdiction of State of Bihar, therefore, part of the cause of the action accrues in the State of Bihar. Hence, the present writ petition is maintainable. In support of the aforesaid contention petitioner is relying on decisions of this Court passed in

(i) Major Ganesh Prasad Sinha vs. The Union of India and Others reported in 1993 1 PLJR 85 F.

(ii) Narendra Kumar Singh vs. National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Limited reported in 1994 2 BLJ 232.

(iii) Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India reported in 2003 2 PLJR 151.

(iv) Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2014 5 Supreme 649.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. On maintainability of the present petition, undisputed facts are that petitioner was working in Assam with the C.I.S.F and he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service and it was confirmed by an Officer who was stationed at Assam and further revisional authority at Kolkata has affirmed the order of dismissal as well as appellate authority’s order. In the light of these facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Tekari, District -Gaya, State of Bihar, hence, whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction in quashing the impugned orders and direction could be given to the office situated in Assam and Kolkata (West Bengal) or not?

9. Whether any writ could be issued to the respondents to the writ petition and which is permanently located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court; Whethe