JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The delinquent officer who is the appellant has suffered the penalty of removal from service in a domestic inquiry constituted under Regulation 6.3 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (in short, PNB Regulations). He approached the writ Court in WP(S) No. 3326 of 2020 after the statutory appeal filed by him under Regulation 17 of the PNB Regulations was dismissed vide order dated 25th June 2020 by the Appellate Authority who is the Managing Director and CEO, Human Resource Management Division, HO, New Delhi.

2. Before the writ Court, a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this High Court was raised by the Punjab National Bank (in short, ‘PNB’) with reference to the judgment in “ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu” (1994) 4 SCC 711 and an order dated 26th February 2019 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 4078 of 2017.

3. The issue of maintainability of the writ petition has been elaborately dealt with by the writ Court with reference to the rival submissions and the judgments in “Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India” (2006) 6 SCC 207 and “Shanti Devi v. Union of India” (2020) 10 SCC 766 which has referred to “Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra” (2000) 7 SCC 640 and “Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Rao” AIR 1953 SC 210.

4. The writ Court has held that the High Court of Jharkhand shall have jurisdiction in the matter as a part of the cause of action has arisen in the State of Jharkhand.

5. The aforesaid finding by the writ Court has been accepted by the Bank and no appeal in the nature of cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been taken out under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of 1916 constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna as adopted by the High Court of Jharkhand.

6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the writ Court's this finding has submitted that in a similar fact-situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has over-ruled the objection to maintainability of the writ petition in “Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India” (2014) 9 SCC 329.

7. While dealing with the writ petition, the writ Court reminded itself the limitations of the power of judicial review in the matters of punishment imposed upon a delinquent government employee. The writ Court has referred to the judgments in “State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar” (2011) 10 SCC 249, “State of U.P. v. Manmohan Nath Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 310” and “State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya” (2011) 4 SCC 584, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that normally the writ Court shall not interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the departmental authority, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.

8. With the aforesaid limitations in mind, the writ Court has declined to appreciate the evidence laid by the parties in course of the domestic inquiry.

9. The writ Court has held as under:

“15. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record that there is violation of principles of natural justice or statutory regulations. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that PNB Officer Employees' (D&A) Regulations, 1977 has been violated, but the Court is not at all inspire confidence with the submission of the learned senior counsel, as sufficient materials have been brought on record by the enquiry officer and the same has been agreed upon by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. Learned senior counsel has failed to establish that there was procedural laches on the part of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary as also the appellate authorities. Neither any fault has been point