Territorial jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the location of the cause of action and the infringement of legal rights within its territorial limits.

Heard.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner who was employed as Constable (General Duty) with Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has assailed the validity of the orders dated 10-4-2009, 8-7-2009 as well as 25-9-2009, respectively, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner at the relevant time was posted in CISF Unit, JNPT, Sheva in me State of Maharashtra. A charge-sheet dated 19-11-2008 was served on the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was held under Regulation 36 of the CISF Regulation, 2001, and by an order dated 10-4-2009, penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Admittedly, the aforesaid order was served on the petitioner in JNPT, Sheva in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 8-7-2009 by the Appellate Authority whereby, the punishment from removal from service was converted into punishment of compulsory retirement. The aforesaid order was also served on the petitioner at his place of posting. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the Revisional Authority by order dated 25-9-2009. The aforesaid order was also served on the petitioner in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner after passing of the order of compulsory retirement has settled in his ancestral village in District Rewa. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents at the outset has raised a preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted at CISF Unit, JNPT, Sheva in the State of Maharashtra. The departmental enquiry has been held against the petitioner in the aforesaid Unit.

The orders which were passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority were also served on the petitioner at JNPT, Sheva. It is further submitted by teamed Counsel for the respondents that merely because after compulsory retirement the petitioner is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance in the cases of Additional General Manager, Human Resource, BHEL Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, AIR 2007 SC 2048 and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others Vs. Kalyan Banerjee, AIR 2008 SC (Supp.) 1553.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori Vs. Chief of Army Staff and another, (2001) 9 SCC 525. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Paras 22 and 24 of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikishan Yadav Vs. Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force and others, 2004 (1) MPLJ 205. It is further submitted that services of the petitioner are centrally monitored and controlled. It is also submitted that the Commandant of CISF can be sued just like Chief of the Army Staff anywhere in the country, therefore, the writ petition before this Court is maintainable. It is further urged that while entertaining the writ petition, reliance only on the cause of action cannot be placed and the issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be viewed in its entirety.

6. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. A seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1961 SC 532, has held that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the p