A part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court as the order of removal was received by the appellant in Calcutta.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the appellant, Umasankar Chatterjee, has challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned judge discharge the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.

( 2 ) THE appellant was appointed the Finance Manager of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), a Government Company under the control of the Central Government and was posted at Namrup in Assam. At the relevant time, his scale of pay was Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2250/ -. On August 25, 1975, the appellant was transferred to Kobra in Madhya Pradesh, but before his transfer he was sent on tour from Namrup to Calcutta on August 15, 1975 for finalisation of the annual accounts with the Government auditors. He was, however, released from Calcutta on August 25, 1975 on account of business, and he joined the Kobra Division on September 4, 1975.

( 3 ) WHILE the appellant was working in the Kobra Division, he was served with a charge sheet containing six Articles of charges by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation under cover of his memo dated September 14, 1976. All the charges, except one, related to the T. A. Bills submitted by the appellant in respect of traveling and transportation costs incurred by him for himself and the members of his family in Calcutta before he joined the Kobra Division in Madhya Pradesh. It was inter alia alleged that in the T. A. Bills the appellant had made certain false claims of cost which he did not incur during his tour in Calcutta. The appellant was put under suspension and, after such suspension, he was permitted by the authority concerned to stay at his Calcutta residence and draw his subsistence allowance from the Calcutta office of the Corporation.

( 4 ) AN enquiry was held in respect of the charges levelled against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of all the charges. The Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation agreed with the findings of the Equity Officer and, after considering the reply of the appellant to the second show-cause notice, he by his order dated December 9, 1977 removed the appellant from the service of the Corporation with immediate effect. It is not disputed that the order of removal was sent to the appellant at his Calcutta residence. Indeed, in the order of removal the address of the appellant was mentioned as 21/c/1b, Prince Baktiar Shah Road, Calcutta-33. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The appeal was however, dismissed by the Board of Directors as communicated to the appellant by the Officer on Special Duty (PIR) by his letter dated September 12, 1977. Both the said order of removal and the order dismissing the appeal were passed in New Delhi.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the order of removal and the order of the Board of Directors dismissing the appellant. The learned Judge took the view that the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the writ petition, for the appellant served all along in Madhya Pradesh and the order of removal and the order of dismissal of the appeal were both passed in New Delhi. In the opinion of the learned Judge, either the Madhya Pradesh High Court or the Delhi High Court, but not the Calcutta High Court, had jurisdiction to the matter. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge discharged the Rule Nisi issued on the writ petition of the appellant. The learned Judge, however, granted liberty to the appellant to challenge the orders before the appropriate forum. Hence this appeal.

( 6 ) THE principal question involved in this appeal is whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction in entertain the writ petition of the appellant.