JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.N. Pathak, J :

Heard Mr. K.N. Choubey, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Rajendra Krishna and Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. P.A.S. Pati and Mr. Rohan Kashyap, advocates appearing on behalf of respondent-Bank.

Prayer.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of penalty of removal from service dated 27.1.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The appellate order dated 25.06.2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner is also under challenge. The petitioner further prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

Factual Matrix

3. The facts as delineated in the writ petition are that while the petitioner was posted as Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Mumbai City, he was proceeded with regular departmental proceeding by framing a memo of charge dated 23.1.2019 under Regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. Altogether three charges were levelled against the petitioner under different headings. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 17th October, 2019 holding some of charges proved and some of them not proved. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit reply to the said enquiry report. Thereafter, the petitioner replied thereto. The disciplinary authority passed the penalty order on 27.1.2020 with major penalty of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, in terms of Regulation 4(i) of the PNB Officer Employees (D &A) Regulations, 1977. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 27.2.2020. The appeal of the petitioner was however rejected by the appellate authority on 25.6.2020.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is the permanent resident of Ranchi, having address given in the cause title; that he received the impugned letters of removal by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority at his permanent address in Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand and he is permanently residing in Ranchi and hence, part of cause of action lies in the State of Jharkhand on account of receiving of the impugned orders and as such, this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

5. The respondent Punjab National Bank filed its counter affidavit raising preliminary objection on the ground that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere receiving of impugned letters of removal by disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority would not be sufficient for the part the cause of action to arise in the State of Jharkhand. This petitioner was working as Deputy General Manager, Priority Sector and Financial Inclusion Division, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi. The entire disciplinary proceeding was commenced and concluded at New Delhi. The entire cause of action arose within the State of Delhi and not in the State of Jharkhand. Mere receiving letters in the State of Jharkhand will not give cause of action in the State of Jharkhand. On merits, it has been stated that the power of judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The petitioner was holding an important post of Branch Head, Brady House, at the time when entire irregularities took place. The petitioner failed to discharge his duty of a responsible officer which led to loss of crores of rupees of the public money at Bank. The Bank, therefore, has passed the penalty of removal from service, which however will not be a disqualification for future employment.

Arguments advanced by Petitioner.

6. Mr. K.N. Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for th