Judgment Barin Ghosh and Anwar Ahmad JJ. 1. Each of the respondents to the writ petition was working for gain outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition was a disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated and concluded outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The punishment, as was awarded to the appellant writ petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding, was also inflicted outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Subsequent thereto, the appellant was transferred to Patna and as a result started working for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court. He thereupon filed an application for review under Rule 39(1) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. This review application was filed by the appellant from Patna, within the jurisdiction of this Court, but to a place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant thereupon filed the writ petition. While the writ petition was pending the review application was rejected and the decision to reject the same was communicated to the appellant within the jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant asked for and obtained leave to amend the writ petition to challenge the decision to reject the review application. Admittedly, the review application was filed against the order passed on the memorial presented by the appellant before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Insurance Company, of which he was an employee, after lapse of more than three years from the date of the said order. 2. One of the issues, thus, cropped up for consideration, while disposing of the writ petition, was whether there was just reason to reject the review application of the appellant. The reasons given, while rejecting the review application, was that the appellant having had taken recourse to all available remedies, he was not entitle to be heard on the review application. 3. A learned single Judge of this Court, who dealt with the matter, felt that once an employee has taken recourse to filing of a memorial under Rule 40, he is precluded from filing a review petition. The learned Judge though noticed Rule 40 of the said Rules, which authorizes an employee to present a memorial, but did not notice in detail Rule 39 which accords power of review. Rules 39 and 40 of the said Rules are as follows: 39. The learned Judge though noticed Rule 40 of the said Rules, which authorizes an employee to present a memorial, but did not notice in detail Rule 39 which accords power of review. Rules 39 and 40 of the said Rules are as follows: 39. Review (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Corporation/Subsidiary may on its own motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, review an order which is made or is appealable under these Rules, and (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; (b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; (c) remit the case to the Authority which made the order or to any other Authority directing such further action or inquiry as it considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it deems fit. Provided that an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty. (2) The Authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalty specified in Rule 23 lies may, on its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding, review any order passed in such a case and pass such order as it deems fit, as if the employee has preferred an appeal against such order. Provided that an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty. Provided further that no action under this sub-rule shall be initiated more than six months after the date of the order to be reviewed. Provided that an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty. Provided further that no action under this sub-rule shall be initiated more than six months after the date of the order to be reviewed. (3) The Chairman or Managing Director or the Chairman-cum-Managing Director may on his own motion or otherwise call for the records of the case of any employee in any proceedings pending before any Competent or Appellate Authority subordinate to him, and remit the case to any Authority in any office who, if the employee had been working in that office would have adequate disciplinary powers to deal with the case, with such direction as the Chairman or the Managing director or the Chairman-cum-Managing Director may deem fit in the circumstances of the case with regard to further proceedings in the case. 40. Memorial An employee whose appeal under these Rules has been rejected by the Appellate Authority subordinate to Chairman/Chairman-cum-Managing Director or in whose case such Appellate Authority has enhanced the penalty either on appeal under Rule 37 or on review under Rule 39(2) may address a memorial to the Chairman/Chairman-cum-Managing Director in respect of that matter within a period of 6 months from the date the appellant received a copy of the order of such Appellate Authority. 4. A look at Rule 39 would show that the power of review rests in two Authorities, namely, the Corporation itself, as granted to it by Sub-rule (1), and upon appellate authority, as granted to it by Sub-rule (2). The Sub-rule (1) though is explicit that such power can be exercised by the Corporation on its own accord, the same may also be exercised otherwise, but does not grant any right to an employee to take recourse thereunder. Sub-rule (2) makes it abundantly clear that the power of review rests only on appellate authority against an order passed by his subordinate authority. Sub-rule (2) makes it abundantly clear that the power of review rests only on appellate authority against an order passed by his subordinate authority. In as much as an appellate authority, may, in exercise of power under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 39, pass an order affecting an employee, he has been accorded a right to prefer a memorial, under Rule 40, not only against an appellate order, but also against an order that may be passed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 39 by an appellate authority. The word otherwise used in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 39 does not bestow any right upon an employee to approach the Corporation to review an order passed on a memorial. 5. In such view of the matter, the conclusion would be that the review application, as was filed by the appellant, was an application, which even if ignored, the appellant had no right to approach the writ court to compel the Corporation to consider the same, for the appellant had no right to compel the Corporation to consider the same one way or the other. Making of such an application do not form part of the cause of action entailing this Court to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the conclusion would be that the writ petition in view of the mandate contained in Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable in this Court. Although the learned Judge, while rejecting the writ petition, observed, upon consideration of the orders passed by the authorities, that there is no scope of interference, but did not take note of the basic contentions highlighted by the appellant in the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities in the disciplinary action. 6. In those circumstances, while we hold that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, we also set aside the judgment and order under appeal and dismiss the writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, reserving the right of the appellant to approach such forum, which has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claims of the appellant as put forward in the writ petition.