The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, and there must be a nexus between the subject matter of challenge and the pleaded facts to determine the cause of action.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned penalty orders dated 01.07.2015 and 15.07.2015 passed by the department, vide which petitioner was removed from the service of the respondent department; and

ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority, vide which petitioner's mercy petition was rejected; and

iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned charge sheet dated 22.07.2013, disciplinary proceedings along with enquiry report dated 23.12.2014; and

iv) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to reinstate the petitioner as per his capacity with the respondent department; and

v) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, after his reinstatement."

2. Learned counsel for Respondents No.2 to 4 takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It is argued that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the charge-sheet was issued by the General Manager (Retail), North at Noida, Uttar Pradesh, Petitioner replied to the charge-sheet giving his own address at Noida and departmental enquiry was held at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, where the Petitioner was posted/working. Further, order of the Disciplinary Authority was issued by Director (Marketing) from corporate office Mumbai and served through Head Retail (North), Noida through Senior Manager (Operations in Charge, Mathura Installations) and the Appellate order was also passed at Mumbai. Therefore, none of the facts pleaded by the Petitioner fall into the category of `bundle of facts' which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which would confer territorial jurisdiction on the Courts at Delhi. It is argued that no Court can usurp jurisdiction that it does not have and parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court. Learned counsel places reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 254, wherein the Supreme Court has held that where clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, the Constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that `cause of action' referred to therein, must at least arise in part within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction when writ powers conferred under clause (1) are proposed to be exercised, notwithstanding the seat of the Government or Authority or residence of the person not being within those territories. The Supreme Court further elucidated on the meaning and connotation of the expression `cause of action'. Relevant paras of the judgment are as follows:

"16. This is a case where clause (2) of Article 226 has been invoked by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petitions. The Constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that the 'cause of action', referred to therein, must at least arise in part within the territories in relation to which the high court exercises jurisdiction when writ powers conferred by clause (1) are proposed to be exercised, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person is not within those territories. The expression 'cause of action' has not been defined in the Constitution. However, the classic definition of 'cause of action' given by Lord Brett in Cooke vs. Gill, (1873) 8 CP 107, that "cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to