Arun Kumar Mitra ( 1 ) WHETHER the writ petition is maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court or not. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition initially Hon'ble Justice D. K. Seth was pleased to pass an interim order to the extent inter alia that the inquiry proceedings shall remain stayed till 14th December, 2001. Subsequently, interim order was extended time to time and thereafter by judgment and order dated 27th March, 2002. His Lordship Hon'ble Justice D. K. Seth disposed of the writ petition by deciding inter alia that the petitioner having tendered resignation, it is not necessary to take any action, though however, a notice of show-cause was issued on 14th September, 2001 but no further steps were taken until 6th september, 2001. In the meantime an application being CAN 3293 of 2002 was filed on behalf of the Bank praying inter alia for recalling and/or suitable modification of the orders dated November 23, 2001, December 5, 2001, december 19,2001 and January 28,2001. ( 3 ) AS stated above, His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Seth disposed of the writ petition by order dated 27th March, 2002. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER an application being CAN 2867 of 2002 was filed for recalling of the order dated 27th March, 2002. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties His Lordship, Hon'ble Justice Seth recalled the order dated 22nd march, 2002 and restored the matter to its original file and number. His Lordship issued direction to file affidavits. By the said order His Lordship also observed that in the meantime the operation of the order sought to be recalled is stayed and the stay however, will not entitle the respondent to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was an employee of Allahabad Bank and was posted at Lajpatnagar Branch at New Delhi. During his tenure of service the husband of the petitioner left for Canada. Since then petitioner was living with her husband at Delhi along with her tiny daughter. She made an application on 28th March, 2000 praying for her transfer at Calcutta where the petitioner's ailing parents were residing. According to the petitioner there was nobody to lookafter her parents and the petitioner accepted that the authorities will consider her application. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the transfer application as annexure "p1" to the writ petition. She made an application on 28th March, 2000 praying for her transfer at Calcutta where the petitioner's ailing parents were residing. According to the petitioner there was nobody to lookafter her parents and the petitioner accepted that the authorities will consider her application. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the transfer application as annexure "p1" to the writ petition. ( 6 ) ON 27th February, 2001, the then Senior Manger of Allahabad Bank mr. A. C. Aggarwal informed the petitioner that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absenting herself from duties since 1 st April, 2000 without any application. The petitioner was instructed to report for duties immediately on receipt of the letter. It was also stated the if the petitioner fails to join then it will be accepted that the petitioner was no longer interested in the service of the Bank. The petitioner in this context has referred to clause 16 of the Bi-partite Settlement dated 17th september, 1984. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the letter dated 27th february as well as a copy of clause 16 of the Bi-partite Settlement and made the same collectively as annexure "p3" to the writ petition. ( 7 ) THE petitioner again made a representation which is annexure "p4". ( 8 ) THEREAFTER, by another letter dated 10th March, 2001 the petitioner informed the respondent Bank that by reason of her acute illness it was not possible for her to continue her duty and in that very letter the petitioner also drew attention of the helplessness of her family. The said representation is annexure "p5". ( 9 ) THE petitioner however, gave a reply to the letter dated 27th February, 2001 by issuing a letter dated 15th March, 2001. In the said reply the petitioner referred to her illness and the petitioner stated that she was very much eager to resume her duty if her transfer is considered with a positive aspect. ( 10 ) THE respondent authorities didn't give any reply to the said letter dated 15 March, 2001 of the petitioner. In the meantime the respondent Bank issued a show-cause notice on 12th March, 2001. In the said notice it was alleged that while the petitioner was functioning as Cashier at Bank's Lajpat nagar Branch, New Delhi, she has received Rs. In the meantime the respondent Bank issued a show-cause notice on 12th March, 2001. In the said notice it was alleged that while the petitioner was functioning as Cashier at Bank's Lajpat nagar Branch, New Delhi, she has received Rs. 9,78,000/- in cash on 15th december, 1999 from the DITDC's Rajeev Nagar, New Delhi Country Liquor vend for credit of Current Account No. 2287 of DITDCs against receipt issued by her on 15th December, 1999 to them. Instead of accounting that cash on the same day she released the pay-in-slip on 17th December, 1999 for Rs. 9,28,000/- thereby misappropriating Rs. 50. 000/ -. A copy of the show-cause notice dated 12th March, 2001 is annexed as annexure "p7". ( 11 ) BY letter dated 17th March, 2001 the petitioner gave reply to the said show-cause notice dated 12th March, 2001. In her reply the petitioner denied the allegations and stated that she had worked till 30th March ,2000 and this incident was not reported at that time and the cause behind this show-cause was to stop the arrangement of her transfer and the same was purely an afterthought. ( 12 ) BY another letter dated 14th June, 2001 the respondent No. 3 issued further show-cause alleging that the petitioner had committed the acts of omission and commission. ( 13 ) THE petitioner through her letter dated 5th July, 2001 gave reply to the show cause notice dated 14th June, 2001 refuting the allegations made in the said show-cause notice. ( 14 ) BY representation dated 2nd August, 2001 the petitioner renewed her prayer in respect of her transfer from Delhi to Calcutta. ( 15 ) IN paragraph 16 of the writ petition it has been stated although for all practical purposes the petitioner should have been treated as if deemed to have voluntarily retired from service of the respondent Bank in terms of clause 16 of the Bi-partite Settlement dated 17 September, 1984. Since the respondent bank switched back from their action as contemplated in their letter dated 27th february, 2001 being annexure "p3" thereof in terms of clause 16 of the Bipartite settlement the petitioner was left with no alternative but to submit her resignation through letter dated 4th August, 2001 addressed to the Manager, allahabad Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch. Since the respondent bank switched back from their action as contemplated in their letter dated 27th february, 2001 being annexure "p3" thereof in terms of clause 16 of the Bipartite settlement the petitioner was left with no alternative but to submit her resignation through letter dated 4th August, 2001 addressed to the Manager, allahabad Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch. Copy of the said resignation letter dated 4th August along with the registration receipt issued by the postal authority in proof of the dispatch have been made annexure "p11". ( 16 ) THE petitioner relied on paragraph 522 (2) of the Sastri Award and stated that the resignation becomes effective on expiry of one month from the date of notice. Paragraph 522 (2) of Sastri Award has been reproduced in paragraph 16 which is as follows: -"a permanent employee desirous of leaving the service of the Bank shall give one month's notice in writing to the Manager. A probationer is desirous of leaving the service shall give 14 days' notice in writing to the manager. A permanent employee or probationer shall, when he leaves services be given an order of release signed by the Manager. " ( 17 ) BY letter dated 5th September, 2001 the respondent No. 2 apprised the petitioner that her reply to show-cause dated 14th June, 2001 was under examination by the Bank and at this stage the Bank couldn't consider her resignation. ( 18 ) THROUGH a letter dated 6th September, 2001 the respondent No. 2 issued Charge-Sheet against the petitioner which is annexure "p13" and has been impugned in this writ petition. ( 19 ) THE prayers made out in the writ petition are as follows: -a) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding and/or directing the respondents and/or each of them, their servants and/or agents to forthwith or cancel the impugned charge-Sheet dated 6" September, 2001 being Annexure "p-13" hereof and to treat the resignation letter dated 4th August, 2001, and having been accepted and to release all terminal benefits to the petitioner including provident Fund, Gratuity etc. and to act in accordance with law; b) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Certiorari do issue commanding and/or directing the respondents and each of their servants and agents to transmit the all relevant records which forced the respondent's in issuance of the Charge-Sheet dated 6th September, 2001 being Annexure "p-13" so that conscionable justice may be rendered by quashing the same; c) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Prohibition do issue prohibiting the respondents and each of them, their servants and agents from acting in any manner, in terms of and/or pursuant to the impugned Charge-Sheet dated 6th September, 2001 being Annexure "p-13" hereof. ( 20 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable here in Calcutta High Court inasmuch as the cause of action has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High court. ( 21 ) LET the maintainability point or the territorial jurisdiction aspect be decided at the first instance. ( 22 ) ARTICLE 226 (2) of the Constitution of India runs as follows : -Article 226 (2 ). The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. ( 23 ) FOR the purpose of discussion let me quote Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. S. 20. ( 23 ) FOR the purpose of discussion let me quote Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. S. 20. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily-resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided than in such case either the leave of the Court is-given or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiescence in such institution: or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 1 ). 1985 Vol. (3) SCC, p. 217: AIR 1985 SC 1289 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. M/s. Swaika Properties and Anrs. ). 2 ). 1994 Vol. (4)SCC,p. 711 (Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kr. Basu and Ors. ). 3 ). Cal LT (1999) 2 HC, p. 527 (Shree Bihar Jute Twine Mills Ltd. and Anrs. v. The Bihar State Financial corporation andors. ). 4 ). 100 Cal WN,p. 322 [calpro Food (Pvt.) Ltd. in Re:] 5 ). 99 Cal WN,p. 307 (In Re: Rajendra Prasad Aggarwal)6 ). 1994 Vol (1)Cal HN,p. 445 (S. S. Jain and Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ). ( 24 ) ART. 226 (2) provides for choice of forum by a writ petitioner. Here, in this sub-article it has been provided that the power conferred under Article 226 (2) may be exercised by any High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arises for exercise of such power. It is therefore clear that the whole of cause of action or part of cause of action where arises, the High Court having territorial jurisdiction in respect of the said area can exercise power. (1 ). Head Office of Allahabad Bank is at Calcutta. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 17/02/1988 (annexure- "p1" ). (2 ). It is therefore clear that the whole of cause of action or part of cause of action where arises, the High Court having territorial jurisdiction in respect of the said area can exercise power. (1 ). Head Office of Allahabad Bank is at Calcutta. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 17/02/1988 (annexure- "p1" ). (2 ). It was issued by the Regional Manager, Calcutta Regional Office at calcutta and the petitioner was posted at Naktala Branch, Calcutta-47. (3) The petitioner was posted at Lajpat Nagar Branch on transfer from calcutta. (4) After the posting of the husband of the petitioner abroad, the petitioner made a request for her transfer to Calcutta. (5) The Senior Manager, Mr. A. C. Aggarwal wrote a letter dated 27th february, 2001 to the petitioner stating inter alia that the petitioner has been absenting herself from the duty of the Branch since 01/04/2000 and the petitioner was instructed to report for duties and this letter was addressed to the petitioner at the residential address of the petitioner at calcutta. (6) Reliance was placed on Bi-partite Settlement (clause 16) by the petitioner which has been reached by and between the Management and the Employees' Association. (7) The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 12/03/ 2001. The petitioner gave a reply to the said show-cause notice from calcutta dated 17th March, 2001. The Senior Manager issued another show-cause notice dated 14/06/2001 to the petitioner. The petitioner again gave a reply to the said show-cause notice from her Calcutta address on 05/07/2001. (8) The petitioner from her Calcutta address on 4th August, 2001 requested the Manager to accept her resignation and to pay all her dues. (9) Charge-Sheet was issued to the petitioner at Calcutta address. The petitioner gave a reply to the said Charge-Sheet from Calcutta. (10) The Chief Manager served a notice dated 25/09/2001 contemplating departmental inquiry in the matter of Charge-Sheet and copy was served to the petitioner at Calcutta address. The Chief Manager passed an order of inquiry on 25/09/2001 and in the said inquiry provisions of Bi-partite settlement was referred. (11) The Inquiry Officer served a notice asking the petitioner to fix preliminary hearing on 17/11/2001 and the said inquiry notice was served on the petitioner at Calcutta address. The Inquiry Officer served another notice dated 10/11/2001 and that too at Calcutta address. (11) The Inquiry Officer served a notice asking the petitioner to fix preliminary hearing on 17/11/2001 and the said inquiry notice was served on the petitioner at Calcutta address. The Inquiry Officer served another notice dated 10/11/2001 and that too at Calcutta address. ( 25 ) THE aforesaid facts come out from the admitted documents on record and on these facts I am to decide whether the Calcutta High Court has jurisdiction or whether whole or part of the cause of action has arisen within the Calcutta high Court's territorial jurisdiction or not. ( 26 ) LET me see what the authorities say in this regard. ( 27 ) AS cited in the case of M/s. Swaika Properties and Anrs. (supra) the hon'ble Apex Court observed transaction must be integral part of the cause of action sufficient to invest the High Court with jurisdiction to entertain the petition. This judgment was related to the acquisition proceeding. ( 28 ) IN the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) the Hon'ble apex Court observed that territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arises are to be decided on facts pleaded in the petition disregarding truth or otherwise thereof and it was also observed that action with facts-must form integral part of the cause of action. ( 29 ) IN the case of Shree Bihar Jute Twine Mills Ltd. and Anrs. v. The bihar State Financial Corporation and Ors. (supra) one learned Single Judge of this High Court referred to the case of M/s. Swaika Properties and Anrs. And observed that in facts of the said case pleaded, the part of cause of action arose within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction. ( 30 ) IN Calpro Food (Pvt.) Ltd. in Re : (supra) Hon'ble Justice S. B. Sinha (as His Lordship then was) also came to the same finding that in the particular facts the cause of action arose within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction. Same principle was adopted in Rajendra Prasad Aggarwal's case (supra) and in this judgment Hon'ble Justice U. C. Banerjee (as His Lordship then was) observed that the existence of office only cannot be the determining factor for jurisdiction. ( 31 ) IN the case of S. S. Jain and Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Same principle was adopted in Rajendra Prasad Aggarwal's case (supra) and in this judgment Hon'ble Justice U. C. Banerjee (as His Lordship then was) observed that the existence of office only cannot be the determining factor for jurisdiction. ( 31 ) IN the case of S. S. Jain and Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) one learned Single Judge of this High Court observed that if two High courts have jurisdiction to entertain a writ application then it is for the High courts to examine the bundle of facts and it should be the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the heavier weight of the bundle of facts lie. It is for the High Court to use its judicial discretion in the matter. ( 32 ) IN a decision reported in 2000 Vol. (7) SCC, p. 640 (Mavinchandra n. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that relief sought by the petitioner is one of the relevant criteria for consideration though not the sole. In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the definition of cause of action from different authorities and dictionaries. The said definitions have been quoted in paragraphs 17,18,19 and 20 which are also quoted hereinbelow: -"17. From the provision in clausc (2) of Article 226 it is clear that the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petition in the High Court depends on whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. ""18. In legal parlance the expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal: a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. (Black's law Dictionary)". "19. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. ""20. (Black's law Dictionary)". "19. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. ""20. In "words and Phrases " (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf" ( 33 ) IN the decision reported in AIR 2004 SC, p. 1998 (National Textile corpn. Ltd. and Ors. v. M/s. Haribox Swalram and Ors.) in paragraph 10 the Hon'ble apex Court observed in the manner as follows: -"10. Under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court empowered to issue writs, orders or directions to any Government, authority or person exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. Cause of action as understood in the civil proceedings means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. To put in a different way, it is bundle of facts which taken with law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. In Union of India v. Adani exports Ltd. , AIR 2002 SC 126 in the context of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, it has been explained that each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. A similar question was examined in State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC, 1289. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. A similar question was examined in State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties, AIR 1985 SC, 1289. Here certain properties belonging to a company which had its registered office in Calcutta were sought to be acquired in Jaipur and a notice under Section 52 of the rajasthan Urban Improvement Act was served upon the company at calcutta. The question which arose for consideration was whether the service of notice at the head office of the company at Calcutta could give rise to a cause of action within the State of West Bengal to enable the Calcutta High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a matter where challenge to acquisition proceedings conducted in Jaipur was made. It was held that the entire cause of action culminating in the acquisition of the land under Section 152 of the Rajasthan Act arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court and it was not necessary for the company to plead the service of notice upon them at Calcutta for grant of appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice issued by the Rajasthan Government under Section 52 of the Act. It was thus held that Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. " ( 34 ) IT is now settled law from all the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court that the part of cause of action, if arises within the jurisdiction of any High court the said High Court can entertain the writ petition. Now, comes the question of cause of action as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in different decisions that cause of action has not been defined in particular statute. Now, the part of cause of action may be stated as part of bundle of facts. In this judgment of national Textile Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that every fact which if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court, is a cause of action. In this judgment of national Textile Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that every fact which if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court, is a cause of action. If that becomes so, the Head Office of the Bank is at Calcutta and the policy decision taken by the Head Office through its Bi-partite Settlement must be also originated from the Head Office at Calcutta. Reliance has been placed on the Bi-partite Settlement by both sides, the employer and the employee. Charge-Sheet, though issued from the Delhi the reply has been given from Calcutta and the Charge-Sheet has been served at Calcutta. The inquiry proceeding notices have been served at Calcutta. Now, it may be unhesitatingly stated that without reply Charge-Sheet is not complete for the purpose of decision. Without considering the reply, which is on record to the show-cause the Court cannot come to a decision regarding the show-cause that is the entire departmental proceeding and the relevant facts therein are inter related. Charge-Sheet reply, show-cause, answer, resignation, acceptance etc. One is corresponding to the other. ( 35 ) IT appears from the above facts or from the facts stated above it can safely be said that part of action rather a major part of cause of action or heavier part of the cause of action has arisen within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction. It is also relevant or important to state here that reliance has been placed on Sastri Award which is also a policy decision and obviously originated from the Head Office at Calcutta and in my view the writ petition is very much maintainable in this High Court at Calcutta. The learned Counsel for the parties are now to make their submissions on merit on the next date.