THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.514 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) The officers of the Central Industrial Security Force, Dhanbad, Chattisgarh, the respondents in W.P.No.13200 of 2001, filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 10- 12-2003 passed therein by the learned single Judge setting aside the punishment of removal from service inflicted upon the respondent/writ petitioner and directing his reinstatement in service with continuity of service but without back wages. This Court, by order dated 8-6-2006, granted interim suspension of the order passed in the writ petition. This appeal was filed with delay and as the counsel who appeared for the respondent/writ petitioner stated that he was not authorized to appear in the appeal, notice was ordered to the respondent/writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellants was also permitted to take out notice to him personally. After the learned counsel filed a memo in proof of such service, the delay was condoned and the appeal was entertained. In spite of the same, the respondent/writ petitioner did not choose to put in his appearance in person or through the counsel before this Court. Sri S.S.Varma, learned counsel for the appellants urged that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the lis inasmuch as the incident which led to institution of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/writ petitioner took place in Dhanbad in Chattisgarh State. Further, the disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him at Dhanbad and his appeal against the disciplinary authority’s order was also entertained and disposed of at Dhanbad. Perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent/writ petitioner in support of his case indicates that he did not state therein as to how this Court is vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. There is not even a recital to the effect that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were served upon him in Andhra Pradesh, which could perhaps have clothed this court with jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the incident and the proceedings on the basis of which the writ petition was founded transpired beyond the territorial limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh and no cause of action arose within the State whereby this Court can exercise jurisdiction. The writ petition therefore ought not to have been entertained by the learned single Judge. On this preliminary jurisdictional ground, the order dated 10-12- 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13200 of 2001 is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J rkk Dated: 4-8-2011