JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged enquiry report dated 30.12.2004, whereby he has been held guilty of the charges of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Challenge has also been thrown to office order dated 16.02.2005 whereby on the basis of the impugned enquiry report, the petitioner has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 16.02.2005 and his period of absence from duty from 03.06.2004 to 11.06.2004 has been treated as dies non. 2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver and was working with 151 Battalion of the CRPF under No. 941174369 CT/DVR. In April, 2004, while he was posted at Dimapur Katkhati in Assam, he was directed to be a part of CRPF Convoy to carry luggage etc to Dayapur. The petitioner proceeded from Dimapur on 31.05.2004 and reached Dayapur on 02.06.2004. He was carrying a service weapon i.e. 9 MM Pistol, one magazine and 35 live rounds of 9MM. The petitioner is stated to have reached Dayapur on 16.05.2004. On 25.05.2004, the petitioner was directed to carry luggage in his vehicle from Dayapur to Dimapur and at that time, he was accompanied by Inspector V. K. Sharma. 3. According to the petitioner, during the course of journey, Inspector V. K. Sharma had heated exchange of words with him and he was also assaulted by the said Inspector. It has been submitted that the petitioner was permitted by the said Inspector V. K. Sharma to talk to the family members on phone and he came to know that his wife is seriously ill. It is case of the petitioner that he, with the permission of Inspector V. K. Sharma, proceeded to Jammu and left the vehicle as well as weapon and arms in the vehicle to the knowledge of Sh. V. K. Sharma. It has been submitted that after remaining at Jammu for a few days, the petitioner immediately proceeded back to Dayapur to resume his duty, where he found that Inspector V. K. Sharma had not deposited the weapon. An FIR was registered against the petitioner and he had to secure bail from the court of law at Silcher, Assam. 4. The petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. An FIR was registered against the petitioner and he had to secure bail from the court of law at Silcher, Assam. 4. The petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. According to the petitioner, he was not afforded full and complete opportunity of defending himself during the enquiry proceedings. It is further contended that the petitioner was not allowed to cross examine any witness. After the completion of enquiry proceedings, relying upon the alleged confession of the petitioner, he was found guilty by the enquiry officer, whereafter, vide the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service retrospectively w.e.f. 16.02.2005 was imposed upon the petitioner. Besides this, his period of suspension with effect from 12.06.2003 to 16.02.2005 was treated as dies non. 5. According to the petitioner, the punishment imposed upon him is unduly harsh and disproportionate to the charges proved against him. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he misplaced the order and other documents in respect of the enquiry and imposition of penalty upon him that were provided to him by the respondents. When he made request to the respondents to furnish him duplicate copies of these documents, the same were not provided to him. The petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2210/2009 and pursuant to order dated 01.12.2009 passed in the said writ petition, the copies of aforesaid documents were provided to the petitioner, whereafter, he filed the instant writ petition. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned enquiry proceedings as well as the penalty imposed upon him on the ground that the allegations levelled against him are fabricated and false. It has been further contended that theft of the weapon that was allocated to the petitioner has not been proved as such, the charges against the petitioner have not been established. It has also been contended that the petitioner was not provided full opportunity to prepare his defence and the principles of natural justice were observed in breach by the respondents, while holding the enquiry against him. It has been further submitted that there was no material before the enquiry officer to come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner have been established. 7. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. It has been further submitted that there was no material before the enquiry officer to come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner have been established. 7. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. In the reply, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present writ petition. It has been further contented that the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal and revision as provided under Rules 28 and 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. On this ground also, it is contended that the petition is not maintainable. On merits, it has been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner deliberately and intentionally without permission of the competent authority left the Battalion location on 03.06.2004 at about 0830 hours with vehicle bearing No. HR-68-1876 along with Government stores/his personal weapon i.e. 9 MM Pistol, 1 Magazine and 9MM 35 rounds and thereafter, he reported back to the Unit Headquarters on 11.06.2004 at about 1700 hours without the weapon/ammunition, which has not been traced till date. 8. According to the respondents, departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner in terms of Office Order No. P.VIII-1/04-EC-II/(D.E.) dated 08.08.2004 for committing act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and also for committing act of disobedience of order/neglect of duty/remissness in discharge of duty in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. After holding of departmental enquiry by a competent authority, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and on the said basis, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 16.02.2005 in terms of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. 9. The respondents have submitted that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity for submitting his defence and to cross examine the witnesses. It has been contended that the enquiry does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. 9. The respondents have submitted that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity for submitting his defence and to cross examine the witnesses. It has been contended that the enquiry does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner was provided all copies of documents/statement of witnesses and other connected documents pertaining to the departmental enquiry at the time of the enquiry. These documents were again provided to the petitioner in compliance to the directions of this Court passed in SWP No. 2210/2009. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. As already stated, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition. It has been submitted that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed by the Commandant 151 Battalion CRPF at Kashipur Silcher, Assam, which is a place located outside the territorial limits of this Court. It has been further submitted that even the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner have been conducted at a place that is located outside the territorial limits of this Court. According to the respondents, all the documents including the impugned order of dismissal and the documents relating to the enquiry were furnished to the petitioner at the place of enquiry i.e. in the State of Assam, as such, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents relating to the dismissal of service and the documents relating to the enquiry were received by the petitioner at Jammu pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation between the parties. Therefore, according to the petitioner, a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and thus, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. It has been submitted that the writ petition has been admitted to hearing and at the time of admission, the respondents have not raised any plea with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court, as such, they are estopped from doing so at the time of final consideration of the case. It has been submitted that the writ petition has been admitted to hearing and at the time of admission, the respondents have not raised any plea with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court, as such, they are estopped from doing so at the time of final consideration of the case. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma v Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 329 . 13. In the instant case, the order, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service has been passed by the Commandant 151 Battalion CRPF at Kashipur, Silcher, Assam. Admittedly the enquiry proceedings have taken place in the State of Assam. The charge sheet has also been furnished to the petitioner in Assam. He has participated in the enquiry proceedings in the State of Assam and as per his own admission, all the documents relating to enquiry as well as the impugned order of dismissal were furnished to him, while he was stationed at Assam. From the above admitted facts, it is clear that whole of cause of action has arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 14. According to the petitioner, he lost the documents that were supplied to him in Assam, whereafter he filed a writ petition before this Court and pursuant to order passed in the said writ petition, he was provided the copies of the documents including the copy of dismissal order at Jammu. This according to the petitioner, gives jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition, I am afraid, the contention put forward by the petitioner, is not tenable for the reason that he has received all the documents including the documents that have been impugned in this writ petition, while he was stationed at Assam. Merely because he was again provided copies of these documents while he was at his residence in Jammu, does not mean that a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 15. In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, it must be disclosed that the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has arisen within its jurisdiction. 15. In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, it must be disclosed that the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has arisen within its jurisdiction. Each and every fact pleaded by the petitioner in his writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court unless those facts are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis involved in the case. In this regard, I am supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs Adani Exports Ltd, (2002) 1 SCC 567 . Para 17 of the said judgment is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under: “17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application 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 the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad.” 16. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad.” 16. Again, the Supreme Court has, in the case of Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 207 , observed as under: “7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof.” 17. From the foregoing analysis of the law on the subject, it is clear that the cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the petitioner to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment of the court. It does not comprise of every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact but every fact it is necessary to be proved. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the petitioner a right to claim relief against the respondents. It must include some act done by the respondents, since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. 18. Coming to the facts of the instant case, as already stated, charge sheet was served upon the petitioner in Assam, enquiry proceedings have taken place in Assam, order of dismissal has been issued from Assam and all these documents have been furnished to the petitioner, while he was stationed at Assam. The fact that the petitioner was furnished another copy of these documents by sending the same at his Jammu address, is not such a fact as would form a part of cause of action in his favour. The fact that the petitioner was furnished another copy of these documents by sending the same at his Jammu address, is not such a fact as would form a part of cause of action in his favour. None of the acts that are under challenge in this writ petition have been done by the respondents in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory). The plea of receipt of copies of documents including the copy of order of termination, does not give jurisdiction to a court to entertain the writ petition. It is only those facts which relate to termination of the services of the petitioner and the enquiry conducted against him that would determine the site of jurisdiction. All these events have taken place outside the territorial limits of this Court. 19. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as in the said case, the representations were addressed by the petitioner therein from Bihar while he was at his residence in Bihar and decision on these representations was communicated by the respondents to the petitioner therein at his residential address. In the instant case, no such event has taken place in Jammu and Kashmir as would give jurisdiction to this Court to entertain the writ petition. Even otherwise, mere receipt of termination order at a particular place would not give jurisdiction to the court located at the said place to entertain the writ petition. 20. In the above context, I am supported by the judgment of this Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Baba vs. Union of India & Ors. 2012 (3) JKJ 119 [HC], wherein this Court has held that only the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the dismissal order was made can entertain the writ petition challenging such dismissal order. It was further held that the mere fact that the petitioner had received copy of the impugned order at Ganderbal within the jurisdiction of this Court does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain and deal with the petition. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 21. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 21. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are barred from urging the plea regarding in maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction in view of their conduct, is concerned, the same appears to be without any merit. It is a settled law that the parties by their conduct and acquiescence cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise does not possess the same. The matter regarding territorial jurisdiction of a court fundamentally relates to taking of cognizance of a case. If a Court, which lacks territorial jurisdiction, entertains a writ petition, it would be an inherent defect which cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. Therefore, even if it is assumed, though it is not correct, that the respondents acquiesced and submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court, still then, because this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, it cannot adjudicate upon the merits of this case. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. 23. The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.