Order : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has made four fold prayers:- (i) for quashing a decision of the respondent-Bank dated 11.06.2011, Annexure-11, issued by the respondent no. 5, the Chief Manager, Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, district-Midnapur West (WB). (ii) He has also made a prayer for quashing the order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 05.02.2010, Annexure-6, passed by the respondent no. 3, the General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, HRD Department, New Delhi. (iii) He has also sought quashing of the Appellate Order dated 30.04.2010, Annexure-8 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Executive Director-cum-Appellate Authority, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, New Delhi. (iv) finally he has made a prayer for payment of all retirement benefits including pension and leave encashment to him as also other admissible dues. 3. It appears that impugned order dated 11.06.2011, Annexure-11 has been served to the petitioner on his address at Midnapur in the district of West Midnapur, West Bengal. The original order of punishment dated 05.02.2010, Annexure-6 has also been communicated to the petitioner while he was posted as Chief Manager, Circle Office, Midnapur, West Bengal. The Appellate Order dated 30.04.2010 has also been served upon the petitioner on his address at Midnapur in the district of West Midnapur, West Bengal. Apart from that the petitioner himself had approached the Calcutta High Court in W. P. No. 3354(w) of 2011 after imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement for direction upon the Bank for release of his post retiral dues, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 15.03.2011, which is at Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Therefore, each of these orders impugned have been passed or served by the respective authorities upon the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal where he was posted or has residential address. Apart from that it also appears that the respondent-Bank themselves have preferred a review petition bearing review petition no. 182 of 2011 against the judgment dated 15.03.2011 passed in W. P. No. 3354(w) of 2011 before the Calcutta High Court, which is said to be pending. The petitioner, however, on passing of the impugned order at Annexure-11 pursuant to the direction passed in W. P. No. 3354(w) of 2011 by the Calcutta High Court, has chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The petitioner, however, on passing of the impugned order at Annexure-11 pursuant to the direction passed in W. P. No. 3354(w) of 2011 by the Calcutta High Court, has chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The only reason that has been shown by the petitioner is that the lapses/irregularities for which he was charge sheeted, was committed while he was posted as Chief Manager, Zonal Office, PNB, Ranchi between 25.04.2005 to 28.12.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of this Court and he has relied upon the provisions of Article 226 Clause-2 thereof. 5. Having considered the aforesaid facts, the relevant events and submissions of the parties, it is apparent that the entire departmental proceeding was initiated and conducted while the petitioner was posted at Midnapur within the territory of West Bengal. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of punishment passed by the respondent no. 3 and the Appellate order passed by the respondent no. 2 served upon him on his address at Midnapur in the district of West Midnapur, West Bengal. The petitioner had consciously chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court for payment of post retiral dues whereafter reasoned order has also been passed which is at Annexure-11, which has also been served upon him within the territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal. The petitioner has therefore earlier approached the Calcutta High Court after impugned action taken against him. A Civil Review Petition is said to have been preferred by the respondent before the Calcutta High Court, which is pending. Therefore, since the matter arising out of the same cause of action is pending before the Calcutta High Court, it is not desirable that the petitioner should pursue the remedy before this Court as it may lead to conflict of decision. This view is further reinforced from the observations made by the Calcutta High Court in the judgment passed in the petitioner's case in concluding portion i.e. at Annexure-9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to raise his grievances before the appropriate forum. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.