Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order the 2nd Respondent dated 05.06.2007 and also the order of 1st Respondent dated 27.09.2007 and direct the Respondents to give arrears of pension with interest at the rate o f11% p.a. Rs. 7,09,535/- being the amount payable towards gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension, salary arrears and transportation charges for the delayed payment. 2. Petitioner was functioning as Administrative Officer in the Divisional Office-III in Mumbai. One Bhale Rao who was then working as Senior Divisional Manager in the Divisional Office III at Mumbai. Petitioner retired from service on 30.09.1999. Payment of pension was ordered on 1.11.1999. while Petitioner was working in the Divisional Office III at Mumbai, Petitioner and the said Bhale Rao have alleged to have committed misconduct and failed to protect the interest of the Company. In this regard, investigation was conducted and on 08.1.2002, a Charge Memo was issued to the Petitioner in respect of the allegations. Petitioner gave a detailed reply and Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted on various dates. As the charges against the Petitioner and the superior officer-Bhale Rao were interconnected, common proceedings were conducted against both of them. 3. Upon receipt of Enquiry Report, Disciplinary Authority noticed that the enquiry was not properly conducted. Under regulation 26 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, the Disciplinary Authority ordered de novo enquiry and Petitioner was informed of the same by proceedings dated 25.5.2004. Being aggrieved by the de novo enquiry, Petitioner preferred Writ Petition was later withdrawn. Co-employee Bhale Rao has also preferred Writ Petition in W.P. No. 2399/2004 before the High Court, Mumbai challenging the de nova proceedings. By the order dated 07.10.2004, W.P. No. 2399/2004 filed by the co-employee-Bhale Rao was dismissed by the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court. The Special Leave Petition in SLP No.26251/2004 preferred against the order of the Division Bench also came to be dismissed. 4. After the withdrawal of W.P. No. 23298/2004, Petitioner addressed the communication dated 26.12.2006 to the disciplinary Authority stating that he has not willfully committed any misconduct and admitting the same, if at all there was any mistake, Petitioner requested not to subject him for any more enquiry. 4. After the withdrawal of W.P. No. 23298/2004, Petitioner addressed the communication dated 26.12.2006 to the disciplinary Authority stating that he has not willfully committed any misconduct and admitting the same, if at all there was any mistake, Petitioner requested not to subject him for any more enquiry. In view of the admission made by the Petitioner and considering the age, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order imposing punishment of reduction of pension by Rs. 250/- per month permanently. Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority was also dismissed by the 1st Respondent in its Proceedings dated 27.09.2007. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Case of Petitioner is that initiation of Disciplinary proceedings is in violation of Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. 5. Resisting the Writ Petition, Respondents – Insurance Company filed Computer contending that the misconduct committed by the Petitioner was in Mumbai while he was working in Mumbai office and the order of Disciplinary Authority emanated from Kolkata and the appeal was dismissed by the 1st Respondent by his proceedings from Kolkata and no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Madras High Court be dismissed. According to Respondents very lenient view was taken as to the misconduct of the Petitioner. 6. Challenging the impugned orders of Respondents, Mr. Blana Haridas learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the 2nd Respondent has arbitrarily proceeded to pass in order for de novo enquiry. Learned Counsel for Petitioner further submitted that the action of Respondents in imposing penalty of reduction in pension by Rs. 250/- per month permanently is wholly without jurisdiction. It was further submitted that after the retirement of Petitioner, Respondents have no power to initiate Departmental proceedings against him which is in violation of Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. According to Petitioner, for the belated disbursement of the terminal benefits, Respondents are bound to pay the interest. 7. Mr. V. Karthic, learned Counsel for Respondents contended that while the Petitioner was working as Administrative Officer in Divisional Office, Mumbai, he had committed the misconduct and the entire misconduct proceedings took place in Mumbai and the order of Disciplinary Authority had emanated from Kolkata and the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the 1st Respondent in Kolkata. V. Karthic, learned Counsel for Respondents contended that while the Petitioner was working as Administrative Officer in Divisional Office, Mumbai, he had committed the misconduct and the entire misconduct proceedings took place in Mumbai and the order of Disciplinary Authority had emanated from Kolkata and the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the 1st Respondent in Kolkata. Therefore, no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Madras High Court and the Writ Petition filed by the Petition in Madras High Court is not maintainable, Learned Counsel for Respondents would further submit that taking into account the admission made by the Petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view and imposed punishment of reduction of pension by Rs. 250/- per month permanently and there is no reason warranting interference. 8. Upon consideration of submission, the following points arise for consideration. 1. Whether Respondents are right in contending that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court and Whether the Writ Petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction? 2. Whether the impugned proceedings would vitiate on account of violation of Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme? 3. Whether punishment of reduction of pension at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month permanently from the pension amount is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the Petitioner? 9. Point No.1 On behalf of Respondents, it was firstly contended that the misconduct committed by the Petitioner was in Mumbai and the order of Disciplinary Authority emanated from Kolkata and no part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Madras High Court and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for Respondents placed reliance upon Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, and others v. Kalyan Banerjee, 2008(3) SCC 456 . In the said case before the Supreme Court, the Company was having its head office at West Bengal and services of its employee was terminated at a place in Jharkhand State. Observing that mere location of the head office in West Bengal would no confer any jurisdiction upon Calcutta High Court to entertain the said Writ Petition, the Supreme Court has held as under. “6. Observing that mere location of the head office in West Bengal would no confer any jurisdiction upon Calcutta High Court to entertain the said Writ Petition, the Supreme Court has held as under. “6. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus is conferred upon the High Court under Article under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226(2), however, provides that if cause of action had arisen in more than one court, any of the courts where part of cause of action arises will have jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. 7. “Cause of action.” For the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20© of the Code of Civil Procedure. It means a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. The entire bundle of facts pleaded. However, need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved is material facts whereupon a Writ Petition can be allowed… 10. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India, 2006(6) SCC 207 the Supreme Court held as follows: “12 The expression ‘cause of action’ has acquired a judicially settled meaning in the restricted sense ‘cause of action’ means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the Suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as noted above, the expression means every facts, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every facts, which is necessary to the proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each facts, comprises in ‘cause of action’. 11. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. V. Union of India and another, 2004 (3) CTC 365 (SC): 2004 (6) SCC 254 , the Supreme Court has held that keeping in view the expression used in Article 226(2) of the Constitution indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. However, even if a small part of cause of action arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the Doctrine of forum conveniens. 12. Referring to various decisions, in the above said decision Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. V. Union of India and another, 2004 (3) CTC 365 (SC) : 2004 (6) SCC 254 , in paragraph (30), the Supreme Court observed as follows: “30 We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenient. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal. 6 70; Madanlala Jalan v. Madanlal, AIR 1949 Cal 495; Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. V. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd ,1997 CWN 122; S.s. Jain & Co. v. Union of India, 1994 (1) CHN 445; and New Horizons Ltd. V. Union of India, AIR 1994 Del. 126 ]. 13. In the instant case, the alleged misconduct was committed in Mumbai. The order Disciplinary Authority emanated from Kolkata and the Appeal was also dismissed by the 1st Respondent by the proceedings dated 27.09.2007 at Kolkata. But as observed by the Supreme Court in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of I.T. and others, 2010 (3) CTC 773,even if small fraction of cause of action accrued within the territories of a State, High Court of that State will have jurisdiction. 14. As pointed out earlier, Petitioner attained superannuation on 30.9.1999. Charge Memo was issued to him on 08.01.2002 which was served on him in Chennai. As against the order of Disciplinary Authority ordering de novo enquiry, Petitioner has filed W.P. No.23298/2004 in Madras High Court and the same had been withdrawn on 20.12.2006. 14. As pointed out earlier, Petitioner attained superannuation on 30.9.1999. Charge Memo was issued to him on 08.01.2002 which was served on him in Chennai. As against the order of Disciplinary Authority ordering de novo enquiry, Petitioner has filed W.P. No.23298/2004 in Madras High Court and the same had been withdrawn on 20.12.2006. After withdrawing the said Writ Petition, Petitioner has sent a communication dated 26.12.2006 to the disciplinary Authority stating that he has not willfully committed any misconduct and even if there was any mistake by oversight admitting the same, Petitioner requested to relieve him from the charges considering the admission of his mistake. It is pertinent to note the order of Disciplinary Authority is based on the above said communication dated 26.12.2006 given by the Petitioner which emanated from Chennai. Since part of cause of action had arisen in Chennai, this court is of the view that Madras High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. 15. That apart, it is petitioner to note that in the earlier W.P. No.23298/2004 filed by the Petitioner, Respondents have not raised the question of jurisdiction. In this regard, the learned Counsel for Petitioner has placed reliance upon Baherein Petroleum Company Limited v. P.J. Pappu and another, AIR 1966 SC 634 , wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of acquiscience. In the above said decision, the Supreme Court has held that “if the defendant allows the Trial Court to proceed to judgement without raising the objection as to the place of suing, he is deemed to waive the objection and will not be subsequently permitted to raise the same”. In the instant case, Respondents have participated in the earlier W.P. No.23298/2004 without any protest. The conduct of Respondents amount to waiver and therefore, the Respondents are precluded from raising any objection as to the question of jurisdiction and the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable and Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 16. Point Nos. 2 and 3: While functioning as Administrative Officer in Divisional Office-III, Mumbai, Petitioner is alleged to have committed the misconduct in settling the amounts without getting the matter investigated. Acts of misconduct were alleged to have been committed during the years 1995-1998 for which Charge memo was issued on 08.01.2002. 16. Point Nos. 2 and 3: While functioning as Administrative Officer in Divisional Office-III, Mumbai, Petitioner is alleged to have committed the misconduct in settling the amounts without getting the matter investigated. Acts of misconduct were alleged to have been committed during the years 1995-1998 for which Charge memo was issued on 08.01.2002. Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 deals with recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation or a Company. As per the Third Proviso to Regulation 47, no departmental or judicial proceedings, if not initiated while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution. 17. Laying emphasis upon the above said Proviso to Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, learned Counsel for Petitioner mainly contented that there cannot be any proceedings in respect of cause of action which arose more than four years before such institution. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further contend that the alleged charges leveled against the Petitioner are relating to the period from 1995-1998 and whereas the Charge memo was issued on 08.1.2002 and the charges so framed were relating to the misconduct allegedly committed four years prior to the institution and that the Disciplinary proceedings is vitiated due to violation of Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. 18. There is no force in the contention that there was violation of Proviso to Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. As pointed Authority, Petitioner has filed W.P. No.23298/2004. After the withdrawal of the said Writ Petition, Petitioner himself had sent a communication dated 26.12.2006 stating that he has not willfully committed any misconduct and if at all there was any oversight mistake, admitting the same, Petitioner requested to relieve him from the charges considering the admission of his mistake. In view of ht admission made by the Petitioner, lenient view was taken and the Disciplinary Authority (2nd Respondent) by the order dated 05.6.2007 imposed punishment of reduction of pension by Rs. 250/- per month permanently. Having admitted the allege acts of misconduct, it is not open to the Petitioner to contend that there was violation of Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. 19. 250/- per month permanently. Having admitted the allege acts of misconduct, it is not open to the Petitioner to contend that there was violation of Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. 19. It is the case of Petitioner that there was voluntary admission on his part because his wife passed away and that Petitioner was also aged requiring money for his livelihood and medical expenses and since the terminal benefits was not settled, only due to his piquant situation, he has chosen to send the said communication dated 26.12.2006. According to Petitioner, the circumstances compelled him to give such a letter dated 26.12.2006 and that there was no voluntary admission. The above contention of Petitioner does not merit acceptance. In the said letter dated Petitioner has stated categorically that if all any oversight mistake is there he is admitting the same and considering his admission of mistake, requesting the authority to relieve him from the charges and disburse the terminal benefits. By such admission in the said communication dated 26.12.2006, Petitioner has impliedly waived any objection or violation of any Regulation as to the Disciplinary proceedings and while so, Petitioner cannot complain that the Disciplinary proceedings initiated beyond the period of four years as stipulated in the Third Proviso to Regulation 47 of General Insurance (Employees) pension Scheme. 20. In exercise of the power conferred under General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, the Disciplinary Authority imposed reduction of pension of Rs. 250/- per month permanently from the pension amount by the proceedings dated 05.6.2007. Exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court would not interfere with the punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate. This Court is of the view that reduction of pension of Rs. 250/- per month from the pension permanently appears to be disproportionate to the charges leveled against the Petitioner. Petitioner is already aged and is also ailing form illness due to age factor. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to modify the punishment of reduction of pension of Rs. 250/- for the period of four years from August 2007. 21. Petitioner retired on 30.09.1999. At that time, there was not contemplation of Departmental proceedings and therefore, full pension was given to him. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to modify the punishment of reduction of pension of Rs. 250/- for the period of four years from August 2007. 21. Petitioner retired on 30.09.1999. At that time, there was not contemplation of Departmental proceedings and therefore, full pension was given to him. According to Petitioner even though full pension was given to him, there was no justification for not paying the terminal benefits and also commuted value of pension from 30.9.1999 to August 2007. An amount of Rs. 4,21,049/- was paid towards payment of gratuity and leave encashment and Rs. 2,32,990/- towards commutation of pension and Rs. 55,496/-towards Arrears and transfer benefits were disbursed to the Petitioner only in the month of August 2007. On behalf of Petitioner, it was contended that because of the delay in disbursement of terminal benefits and payment of commutation of pension, Respondents are liable to pay interest at the rate of 11% p.a. Learned Counsel would further contend that interest ought to be awarded atleast on the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- belatedly paid to the Petitioner. As pointed out earlier, Petitioner has challenged the de novo enquiry by filing W.P. No.23298/2004. Only after the dismissal of W.P. NO.2399/2004 filed co-employee [Bhale Rao] and after the dismissal of SLP No.26251/2004, Petitioner had withdrawn the Writ Petition filed by him on 20.12.2006. Based on his communication dated 26.12.2006, Disciplinary Authority passed the order on 05.6.2007. Immediately, within two months thereafter terminal benefits and commutation amount was paid to the Petitioner in August 2007. As such there seems to be no delay in disbursement of the terminal benefits and commutation of pension and the prayer of the Writ Petitioner to award interest cannot be countenanced and Point Nos.2 and 3 are also answered accordingly. 22. In the result, it is held that the madras High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. Punishment of reduction of Rs. 250/- per month permanently from the pension amount is modified as punishment of reduction of Rs. 250/- per month from the pension amount for a period of four years from August 2007 and the Writ petition is partly allowed. In all other respects, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.