JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri Udit Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri I.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner under Section 11(1) of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. After departmental proceedings the writ petitioner was removed from service. The removal order was passed on 7.4.1999 at Durgapur, West Bengal. He challenged the removal order in appeal before the appellate authority at Kolkata, West Bengal. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the writ petitioner on 10.6.1999. The removal order as well as the appellate order had been challenged before this Court and the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition No. 29492 of 1999 vide judgment dated 21.8.2000 and quashed the removal as well as appellate order with all consequential benefits of service to the writ petitioner. 3. In this intra Court appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the writ petition before this Court was not maintainable and it was maintainable only in the State of West Bengal. He has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Madan Tiwari, constable v. Deputy Inspector General of Police and another, 1999(4) AWC 2908, a division bench decision in Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(2) AWC 1293 , Director General, C.R.P.F., New Delhi v. Lalji Pandey, 2010(3) ADJ 433 DB and Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others, 2004 (4) ESC 2312 FB (Allahabad). We have gone through these decisions. In Rajendra Kumar Mishra (supra) it has been held by the Full Bench that mere permanently residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh would not confer any right on the respondent to challenge the orders passed in the State of West Bengal and the respondent does not get any right on the ground of being resident of Uttar Pradesh to challenge the orders passed in the State of West Bengal before this Court, as no part of cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court or Uttar Pradesh. 4. 4. Having given our anxious consideration to the question, we are of the considered opinion that since the removal order and appellate orders were passed in the State of West Bengal, Allahabad High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the writ petition filed by the respondent or even to entertain it. In this view of the matter, the order of learned Single Judge cannot be maintained. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri I.R. Singh has vehemently urged that the respondent was selected and recruited at Allahabad, but he was in service at Kolkata when he was removed in service. Therefore, he can challenge the removal order and the appellate order in the State of West Bengal. Even the place of recruitment will not confer any right to challenge the removal order in Allahabad High Court. The cause of action will accrue where the removal order or appellate order had been passed. Sri I.R. Singh has further urged that if the writ petition filed by the respondent was not maintainable, then the Special Appeal filed by Union of India is also not maintainable. This question has been decided by the division bench of this Court in Lalji Pandey (supra). Therefore, this argument is devoid of any merits 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21.8.2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29492 of 1999 is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed as being not maintainable. However, the writ petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate legal forum, in the State of West Bengal. ————