Radhakrishnan, J.

Question that arises for consideration in this case is whether this court has got jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the material, essential and integral part of cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

2. Original petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P7, P8, P11 and P14 orders and also for a mandamus directing the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and also for other consequential reliefs. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while he was employed as District Manager at Purnia (Bihar) during June 1981 to November, 1982. Memo of charges dated 19-10-84 was served on the petitioner while he was working in the Office of the Food Corporation of India at Trivandrum. Petitioner replied to the memo of charges. Enquiry officer was appointed and on completion of enquiry petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reducing the pay by two stages by order dated 7-2-1991. Order was communicated to the petitioner while he was working in the FCI Office at Pune. Petitioner preferred an appeal against that order. Appeal was rejected by order dated 6-4-1993 and the same was communicated to the petitioner while he was working as Deputy Manager (General), FCI, Regional Office, Trivandrum. Later punishment was imposed and he filed review petition. Since the same was not disposed of, he filed OP.20673/99 which was disposed of by this court directing disposal of the review petition filed by the petitioner.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, even though disciplinary proceedings were initiated while he was working at Bihar he was served with memo of charge while he was working in the F.C.I. Office of Trivandrum and later the punishment was imposed and he filed appeal and the appellate order was also received while he was working at the Regional Office of the FCI, Trivandrum. Later review petition was disposed of by order dated 29-10-99. Counsel therefore submitted that this court has got jurisdiction to entertain this original petition since he has received various communications while working at Trivandrum.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, contended that no cause of action either in part or in full arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Counsel further submitted, the mere fact that the petitioner was working at Trivandrum Office and this court directed disposal of the review petition filed by the petitioner would not confer any territorial jurisdiction on this court. In support of this Contention, counsel placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim, (AIR 2007 SC 1812).

5. Question raised in this case is no more res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant, (1993 (3) KLT 629), held that when action complained of takes place outside territorial jurisdiction of High Court and an appeal there from is dismissed by an authority located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court cause of action wholly arises outside the jurisdiction of the High and Article 226(2) of the Constitution cannot be invoked to sustain a writ petition in this Court on the basis that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court merely because the appellate order communicated from the seat of the appellate authority was received while the petitioner was residing or working within the jurisdiction of this court. The apex court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000 SC 2966) held that the power conferred on the High Courts under Art.226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” and