Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service which is at Annexure-8, and also the order which is at annexure-9 and annexure-10, namely, the appellate and revisional orders. Both revisionable and appellate order has affirmed the original order of dismissal. 3. It is common ground that the petitioner has been dismissed from the service on the basis of a charge-sheet and pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court on the gound of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that nothing has happened within the territorial jurisdication of this court and the entire cause of action of the petitioner took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 5. This Court also finds that in the array of party all the respondents are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in this case, it has been stated that the petitioner was ail along posted outside the jurisdiction of this Court. In para-19 of the said counter affidavit at page 18 it has been stated that the petitioner was initially posted to the CISF Unit at Salem Steel Plant, Salem with effect from 1.8.1986 and was further transferred to CISF Unit, Madras Refineries Limited, Madras with effect from 1.7.1987, and it is not in dispute that the charges have been issued against the petitioner by the authorities in Madras for the act of commission and ommission committed by the petitioner while acting in Salem. The impugned order of dismissal was also passed by the authorities in Madras and was served on the petitioner also in Madras. Thereafter, the petitioner came back as dismissed employee to his village-home at Siwan and preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. Thereafter, after dismissal of appeal he filed revision but the same was also dismissed. 7. The impugned order of dismissal was also passed by the authorities in Madras and was served on the petitioner also in Madras. Thereafter, the petitioner came back as dismissed employee to his village-home at Siwan and preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. Thereafter, after dismissal of appeal he filed revision but the same was also dismissed. 7. Both appellate order and the revisional order was passed by the authorities who are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, but for the mere fact that the revisional order and the appellate order were served on the petitioner while he is in his village home at Siwan the jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked, but this point is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court- reported in 1983 P.L.J.R. page 54, in the case of Nand Kishore Singh vs. Union of India. 8. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Nand Kishore Singh (supra) is directly against the maintainability of the writ petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This Court is bound by and is in respectful agreement with the said judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Nand Kishore Singh (supra). 9. This writ petition is therefore dismissed without going into the merits of the case. 10. It is however, made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the controversy about the said disciplinary proceeding at all and it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievance in respect of the impugned orders passed against him in the disciplinary proceeding. 11. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.