JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Anxs. 1 & 2 dated 3/24.1.84 and also pray that if any order imposing punishment is made the same may also be quashed. In alternative it has been prayed that the orders dated 4.4.1988, 5.4. 88 and 6.4.88 may all be quashed and the respondents may be directed to take the proceedings and on from the date as they were before 4.4.1988. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is employed as Assistant Manager (QC) in the respondent Food Corporation of India, a Government of India undertaking. It is alleged that vide a memorandum dated 3/24.1.1984 the petitioner was informed that an enquiry is proposed to be held against him on the charges set out in the Annex.1 of the memorandum and explained in Annex.2 thereof and some documents. It is also alleged that vide order dated 11.4.1984 one Mr.B.C. Bhasin, Joint Manager (INQ) was appointed as Inquiry Officer and by the order dated 27.4.1984 one Mr.K.C. Chawla, AM(G) was appointed as Presenting Officer. The order of appointing presenting officer was modified vide order dated 20.7.1984 appointing another person as Presenting Officer which was communicated to the petitioner on 18.9.1984. The petitioner was informed by memorandum dated 1.9.1984 that a departmental inquiry will be held on 29.9.1984 and on that date the petitioner's plea was recorded and some documents were put to him which were inspected and he was told that he may name his defence witnesses by 10.10.1984. By the order dated 8.9.1986 one Mrs. S.Choudhary, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. It is also alleged that the inquiry went in slumber till order dated 31.1.1987 was passed appointing one Mr.K.S. Sethi as the Inquiry officer and by another letter dated 31.1.1987 received by the petitioner on 23.2.1987 one Mr. J.C. Sharma, was appointed as the Presiding Officer. The Inquiry Officer was again changed vide order dated 24.4.1987 appointing one Shri G.S. Sewak as Inquiry Officer in place of Mr. K.S. Sethi. By the order dated 2.11.1987 one Mrs. Kiran Anand Lal was appointed as Inquiry Officer and one Mr. M.S. Aggarwal was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The petitioner has alleged that he sent a letter to the Inquiry Officer stating that he had submitted a list of documents to Mr. K.S. Sethi. By the order dated 2.11.1987 one Mrs. Kiran Anand Lal was appointed as Inquiry Officer and one Mr. M.S. Aggarwal was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The petitioner has alleged that he sent a letter to the Inquiry Officer stating that he had submitted a list of documents to Mr. B.C. Bhasi, the then Inquiry Officer which he wanted to tender in the Inquiry but despite lapse of such a long time nothing has been heard. This letter/representation (Annex.3) dated 4.8.88 was forwarded by the District Manager, District Officer, Jodhpur vide letter dated 18.8.1988 (Annex. 4). It is also alleged that 12 documents were served upon him on 12.9.1988 including two notices of appearance dated 11.3.1988 and 14.3.1988 (Annex. 6 & 7) and the copies of order-sheets dated 8.3.88, 9.3.88, 4.4.88, 5.4.88 and 6.5.88 (Annex. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively) disclosing that the petitioner absented from hearing despite service of notice of hearing. It is further alleged that he moved an application to the District Manager, Jodhpur on 4.11.1988 inquiring of him as to when the notices for appearance dated 11.3.88 and 14.3.88 were received in his office, a copy of which was endorsed to the Inquiry Officer vide Annex.13. The Assistant Manager (T), for District Manager in response to his application informed the petitioner that the notices for appearance dated 11.3.88 and 14.3.88 were received in the office of District Manager on 12.9.1988 and were received from the Regional Office, Jaipur vide letter dated 9.9.88 which were received vide letter dated 21.12.88 (Annex. 14). The petitioner has alleged that he made a representation dated 14.2.1979 Annex. 15 to the Enquiry Officer praying that ex-parte proceedings has been taken without following the principles of natural justice and that he may be given an opportunity of hearing. The respresentation Annex. 15 was forwarded by the District Manager vide his letter dated 22.2.1989 (Annex. 16). The petitioner has further alleged that a memorandum dated 31.5.1984/2.7.1984 was served upon him to the effect that action is proposed to be taken against him under regulation 60 of the F.C.I. (Staff) Regulation and statement of imputation of mis-conduct or misbehaviour. Vide said memorandum Annex. 17 and Annex. 16). The petitioner has further alleged that a memorandum dated 31.5.1984/2.7.1984 was served upon him to the effect that action is proposed to be taken against him under regulation 60 of the F.C.I. (Staff) Regulation and statement of imputation of mis-conduct or misbehaviour. Vide said memorandum Annex. 17 and Annex. 17-A, the petitioner was further charged of remaining absent from 17.2.1983 to 10.3.1983, for which the petitioner was charged by memorandum Annex.l. The non-petitioner after holding enquiry imposed punishment of Censure upon the petitioner vide order dated 12.6.1986. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 4.7.1989. Notice to show cause was issued on 5.7.1989. In pursuance of the notice, non-petitioners appeared and filed reply on 10.10.90. Rejoinder has been filed on 3.9.1991. Non-petitioners also filed counter to the rejoinder on 17.1.1992. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was finally heard at the admission stage. 4. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has raised two preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition against show cause notice which was not filed; firstly he has contended that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction and secondly that the petitioner has alternative remedy wherein he can raise all the points and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. In support of is submission he has relied on State of Rajasthan v.M/s. Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC-1289 , Oil and Natural Gas Commission v.Utpal Kumar Basu and others, 1994 (4) SCC -711 , C.A. Abraham v.Income Tax Officer Kottayam & anr., AIR 1961 SC 609 , Mahendra Nath Sharma v.Cooperative Societies, 1989 (2) RLR 18 , Lekha Singh v.State, 1985 RLR 596 , Chaina Ram v.State, WLN (UC) -1977-31 . 5. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order imposing penalty was served on the petitioner when he was posted at Jodhpur, so the cause of action occurred at Jodhpur and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. He has submitted that the impugned order is void ab-initio, so the question of alternative remedy is not available and it is no bar against the petitioner to approach this Court. He has submitted that the impugned order is void ab-initio, so the question of alternative remedy is not available and it is no bar against the petitioner to approach this Court. He has also submitted that if principles of natural justice is violatied one can challenge show cause notice even if final order is not passed and in such cases it cannot be said that alternative remedy is efficacious one. On merits he has contended that the petitioner was served with a Memorandum way back in January, 1984 and except for holding a hearing on 29.9.1984 nothing was done till 8.3.88, which cannot be permitted to hang over the head of the petitioner for such a long time. He has further submitted that the notice of hearings were never served upon the petitioner and the exparte proceedings taken against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted being violative of principles of natural justice. He has relied on The Chairman & Managing Director, PNB v.Dilip Kumar, 1987 Lab. I.C. 1440 , Prem Cables (P) Ltd. v.The Assistant Collector, WLN 1978-481 . 6. On the other hand Mr. Singhvi has submitted that the Food Corporation of India, the non-petitioner No. 1 as far as possible makes effort that in the matter of departmental enquiry an independent officer is appointed and in this case, independent officers who came on deputation repatriated to their own department, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to this delay. He has also contended that the petitioner never intimated the factum of his transfer to the Enquiry Officer, so the notice could not be sent to the petitioner in time for which he himself is responsible, so also he kept this petition pending in this Court which has no territorial jurisdiction. 7. The law on the point of territorial jurisdiction is well settled and it is needless to state that even if a part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, maintainability of the petition cannot be questioned on this point. However, territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arises has to be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition disregarding truth or otherwise thereof. 8. However, territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arises has to be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition disregarding truth or otherwise thereof. 8. In State of Rajasthan v.M/s. Swaika Properties (supra), their lordships of the Supreme Court in a matter relating to acquisition of land which was situated in Rajasthan has held that Calcutta High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain petition challenging acquisition as mere service of notice does not give rise to cause of action in West Bengal. The Supreme Court has depricated the practice of the High Court in passing interlocutory orders, while making following observations:- "The rule nisi issued by the Calcutta High Court on the petition and the interim exparte prohibitory order restraining the State Government from taking any steps to take possession of land acquired are therefore, liable to be set aside. The practice prevalent in the Calcutta High Court of passing interlocutory orders for the mere asking, irrespective of the fact whether or not the High Court had any territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is depricated." 9. In O.N.G.C. v.Utpal Kumar Basu (supra), their lordships while considering the question of territorial jurisdiction has held as under:- "Territorial jurisdiction-Territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arises is to be decided on facts pleaded in the petition disregarding truth or otherwise thereof and must form integral part of the cause of action. Mere fact that the petitioner company having its registered office at Calcutta, had read in Calcutta newspaper at ONGC's advertisement inviting tenders at Delhi for works to be executed in Gujarat and in response to that petitioner sent its tender to the Delhi address from Calcutta and also made representation from Calcutta against non-consideration of its offer on ground of its ineligibility because of its failure to fulfil the experience criterion, held, would not constitute integral part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of the petitioner-Practice of High Court of entertaining petitions merely because petitioner resides within its territorial jurisdiction even though no cause of action arose within its jurisdiction strongly depricated." 10. In the instant case, the petitioner while working at Punjab, charges of misconduct/misbehaviour and also for remaining absent from duty from 17.2.83 to 10.3.83 were levelled. It is not in dispute that enquiry was conducted in Punjab. After applying the settled proposition of law in the facts and circumstances of the given case, I have no hesitation in accepting the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Singhvi about the non-maintainability of writ petition on the score of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner has not pleaded anything in the writ petition by making averments disclosing that even a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In rejoinder the petitioner came out with a case that a part of cause of action arose at Jodhpur since order of punishment was served upon the petitioner while he was posted at Jodhpur. This averment made at this stage is also of no availe since mere service of order under challenge at Jodhpur does not give rise to cause of action in State of Rajasthan as observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v.M/s. Swaika Properties (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show otherwise. Therefore the cases cited by Mr. Mridul are not any help. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits and the other preliminary objection of availability of alternative remedy, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition in this Court and the same has to be dismissed as not maintainable. The ad-interim order dated 5.7.1989 stands discharged. However, the petitioner will be free to avail remedy before the appropriate forum according to law. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with cost which is quantified to the tune of Rs. 1500/-.Petition Dismissed with costs. *******