A High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction under constitutional provisions if no integral part of the cause of action arises within its territory. Internal administrative communications between various office branches do not suffice to create a nexus for jurisdiction if the substantive material facts occurred entirely in another region.

THIS WRIT IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CANARA BANK HRM SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE, AGRA, VIDE AGCO:HRM:DP:CHO39940 CS 04 2022 DATED: 29.10.2022 ANNEXED TO WRIT PETITION AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Articles of Charges, dated 29.10.2022 vide Annexure F.

2. This Court, by order dated 13.02.2023, passed the following order:

“ The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired from service with the respondents - Bank in the year 2015 and he is presently issued with a charge memo only because he was treated as hostile witness in the pending proceedings before the CBI Court. It is a settled that act of turning hostile ipso facto would not amount to misconduct. The charge memo is issued without considering this aspect.

On perusal of the records, including the petitioner’s testimony before the CBI Court, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge memo is stayed until the next date of hearing.

There shall be emergent notice to the respondents.”

3. Upon service of notice, the respondent - Bank filed an interlocutory application, seeking vacation of the interim order granted by this Court on 13.02.2023, and also filed statement of objections. In its objections, the respondent - Bank raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, on the ground that, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the parties were heard on the question of maintainability.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner joined the service of the Bank on 23.11.1982 as a Clerk at the Agra Lohamandi Branch, Circle Office, Agra, and superannuated from service on 28.02.2015 from the Virandhavan Branch, Circle Office, Agra. The entire service of the petitioner was rendered in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, and therefore, the matter falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad. This Court has no jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. It is further contended that, when Sri Damodar Chandore, the then Senior Manager working at Mathura Main Branch from 21.07.2008 to 05.11.2011, there was a serious allegation of misappropriation of money; hence, the Bank registered FIR against Damodar Chandore, and the matter was entrusted to the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, Ghaziabad. After the investigation, the CBI submitted its report on 30.11.2020 against Damodar Chandore and nine others. When the CBI recorded the petitioner’s statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., on 14-11-2017, he turned hostile. Therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Since no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Adani Exports Ltd. reported in AIR 2002 SC 126 and in the case of State of Rajastan vs. M/S.Swaika Properties and Another reported in 1985(3) SCC 217.

6. Per contra, le