ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th December, 2003, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 32 of 2002, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 2. Although the appeal was filed after a delay of about 43 days, after hearing the learned counsel, we are satisfied that sufficient grounds has been made out for condonation of such delay. The delay in filing the appeal is accordingly, condoned and the appeal is taken up for admission. 3. The writ petitioner/appellant, who is a resident of the district of Koderma within the State of Jharkhand, was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Shar Centre, Sriharikota, Andhra Pradesh. While posted at Andhra Pradesh, the writ petitioner/appellant was served with a memo of charge and was awarded punishment of fine, equivalent to seven days wages. An appeal, filed by the writ petitioner/appellant against the said order of punishment, was rejected by the Commandant, C.I.S.F. (Ministry of Home Affairs) Unit Shar Centre Sriharikota on 2nd August, 1999. Subsequently, the writ petitioner/appellant was again served with another memo of charge, while posted at Vellore within the State of Tamil Nadu and by a final order dated 19th January, 2001, he was removed from service. 4. The writ petitioner/appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F., Tamil Nadu, which was also rejected vide order dated 13th April, 2001. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the writ petitioner/appellant in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and, as indicated hereinabove, the same was dismissed, upon the learned Single Judge holding that the High Court at Jharkhand had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ application, as no part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the writ petitioner/appellant has filed the appeal in hand. Appearing in support thereof, Mr. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the writ petitioner/appellant has filed the appeal in hand. Appearing in support thereof, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate, submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error on account of the fact that a part of cause of action did arise within the State of Jharkhand, namely, that the appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant from within the State of Jharkhand, although the same was addressed to the appellate authority in Tamil Nadu and that the appeal was ultimately dismissed at Tamil Nadu. What Mr. Rajiv Ranjan tried to emphasize is the fact that the order by which the appeal was dismissed and/or rejected was served on the writ petitioner/appellant within the State of Jharkhand, which according to Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, also formed part of the bundle of facts, which constitutes cause of action. 6. In support of such submission, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan referred to and relied on a Bench decision of Patna High Court in the case of Brig. Ashok Malhotra v. The Union of India and others, reported in 1997 (2) All PLR 224, wherein, according to Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate, a similar situation having arisen, it was held that the writ petition was maintainable since part of the cause of action had arisen within the State of Bihar. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate, therefore, urged that following the precedent in the said case, this Court should also hold that the writ petition, filed by the writ petitioner, was maintainable before the Jharkhand High Court. 7. Learned counsel, opposing the appeal, contended that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the State of Jharkhand and, accordingly, the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the writ petition was not maintainable on account of lack of jurisdiction. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions, made on behalf of the parties, having particular regard to the fact that different judgments and decisions of the Honble Supreme Court have been referred to in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, where similar questions had arisen and had been settled. In the case, cited by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the Court particularly indicated that the impugned order was communicated to the appellant, while he had been working at Danapur on his posting as Commander of Bihar and Orissa Sub- Area, Danapur Cantonment. In the case, cited by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the Court particularly indicated that the impugned order was communicated to the appellant, while he had been working at Danapur on his posting as Commander of Bihar and Orissa Sub- Area, Danapur Cantonment. In such a situation, the Division Bench, having regard to the fact that the cause action arose only on communication of the order under challenge, while the petitioner was posted at Danapur, within the State of Bihar, held that part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. 9. In the instant case, the facts are otherwise. The services of the writ petitioner/appellant were terminated in Vellore within the State of Tamil Nadu. The appeal, filed by him, was before the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F., Tamil Nadu, and was dismissed in Tamil Nadu. The fact that the writ petitioner/appellant was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand High Court, where the appellate order was served on him, in our view, is not sufficient to hold that the cause of action for filing the case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court. Had the initial order of dismissal been served on the writ petitioner/appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court, the question would have been otherwise. As the matter stands, we are of the view that no part of the cause of action for the writ petition had arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. In our view, the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution relating to territorial jurisdiction of this High Court is not attracted and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. we, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order under appeal and the appeal is also dismissed. 10. However, this order will not, prevent the writ petitioner/appellant from moving before the appropriate forum, if so desired. 11. No order as to costs.