1. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence the preliminary issue was heard.

2. Petitioner is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He is challenging the orders passed against him in the departmental action. Ext P3 memo of charge was issued to him by the 5th respondent-the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, Vishakhapatnam Port Trust, while the petitioner was working in that unit. The petitioner submitted his reply to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent issued Ext.P5 order finalising the disciplinary action awarding 'censure'. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P4 show cause notice on 04.12.2015 in exercise of his power to review suo motu proposing to enhance the punishment of withholding of one increment for two years which will not have the effect of postponing of future increment in pay. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 objection on 14.12.2015. But the 4th respondent issued Ext.P8 order on 06.01.2016 enhancing the penalty to withholding of one increment for one year. Petitioner submitted an appeal to the 3rd respondent-the DIG, CISF, at Chennai. He rejected it by Ext.P11 order dated 19.05.2016. Petitioner submitted a revision petition before the 2nd respondent-the Inspector General of CISF at Chennai. By Ext.P12 order dated 17.03.2017, the 2nd respondent rejected it.

3. Petitioner submits that he worked at Visakhapatnam from 06.08.2015 till 19.1.2016 and from 20.01.2016 to 17.03.2017 he was at Kayamkulam within the jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner also states that he preferred appeal and revision to respondents 3 and 2 and they passed Exts.P11 and P12 orders while he was working in Kayamkulam within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that he received Ext.P11 appellate order while working within Kerala. He submitted revision petition while working in Kerala. Ext.P12 was also communicated to him while working at Kayamkulam. Therefore, part of the cause of action arose within Kerala. Being an employee working in Kerala under the respondents who are having offices all over India, and as he is a serving member of the CISF, the petitioner claims that the writ petition is maintainable before this Court.

5. In view of the rival contentions, it is necessary to have a look at Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.”

The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that he received the appellate order while working in Kerala. As the original order merged with appellate order and he is affected by them while working in Kerala, part of the cause of action arose in Kerala, as held in para.27 of the judgment in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd V Union of India: (2004)6SCC 254.

6. But on a reading of the judgment it would show that the Apex Court in Kusum Ingott's case held that the writ petition will lie either at the place of