JUDGMENT : RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J. 1. The appellant had challenged the issuance of charge-sheet dated 29.10.2021 by respondent No. 4 before learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2595/2022, which has been dismissed at motion stage itself on 12.04.2022 and thus the very order passed by learned single Judge is under challenge in the instant writ appeal. 2. The case, in a nutshell, is that, First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered against the Officers of DGMS Dhanbad on the charges of criminal conspiracy, for issuance of “Sirdar's Certificate” to various employees of the department and based upon such fake and forged certificates, several persons have obtained employment under the various units of the respondent's establishment. The allegation against the appellant is that he impersonated as Sahdeo Prasad and appeared in the Sirdar's Certificate examination. Though, the certificate was named upon Sahdeo Prasad, but the photograph of the appellant was affixed over it. Later on, the photograph was also changed by counterfeiting the certificate. The scam was busted by CBI/ACB and final report was filed before the Special CBI Court, Dhanbad against many officers of the respondent’s department including the appellant. Respondent No. 4 got information regarding filing of charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant and other accused persons. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 issued Article of Charges against the present appellant on 29.10.2021. The Article of Charges was issued for violation of Clause 26.1, 26.22 and 26.39 of Certified Standing Orders of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short ‘SECL’). The appellant applied for anticipatory bail and same was granted by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi vide order dated 11.01.2022. The appellant challenged the issuance of Article of Charges by the Sub Area Manager, Kurja Sub Area, SECL, Hasdeo Area, Post Bijuri, District Anuppur (MP) on the ground that the charges are totally vague, complete details in respect of alleged misconduct have not been provided, the material documents have not been supplied and charge-sheet has been issued at a much belated stage. 3. 3. The respondents appeared before the learned single Judge on advance copy and on the first date of hearing, at motion stage itself, the petition was dismissed, where the respondents took a plea that charges are quite serious in nature and the courts should be slow in interfering disciplinary proceedings particularly at the show cause or at the charge-sheet stage. 4. The learned single Judge vide order dated 12.04.2022 dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant holding that there is no delay in issuance of the charge-sheet and the appellant shall be entitled to get all the relevant documents and other evidence from the respondents. The appellant preferred the writ appeal against the order dated 12.04.2022 taking a new plea that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings on the same set of facts cannot go on simultaneously. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents filed reply and additional reply too. In reply, the respondents have denied the averments made by the appellant in writ appeal, whereas in the additional reply, issue of territorial jurisdiction has been raised. The respondents have stated that the criminal case is pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad and Article of Charges has been issued by respondent No. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that cause of action does not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, the instant writ appeal is not maintainable. 6. In counter, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Head Office of the SECL is situated at Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and if, any adverse order is passed against the appellant, the appeal would lie before respondent No. 1, whose office is situated at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, and therefore, this High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ appeal. 7. Before delving into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to examine the issue of territorial jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that the criminal case is registered at Dhanbad and the same is pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. The appellant has been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The Article of Charges has been issued by respondent No. 4, whose office is situated at Kurja Sub Area, Hasdeo Area, Post Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.). The appellant has been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The Article of Charges has been issued by respondent No. 4, whose office is situated at Kurja Sub Area, Hasdeo Area, Post Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.). The appellant has not placed any document to demonstrate that cause of action or any part of cause of action for the purpose of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India has arisen within the territory of State of Chhattisgarh. The appellant has made a submission that Head Office of SECL is situated in the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore, the petition as well as the writ appeal is maintainable before this High Court. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others vs. Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3 SCC 456 , while dealing with similar issue held that because the head office of the Company is situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself would not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court, particularly when the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against the employee. Paragraph-13 of the above judgment, which is relevant for the present case, is reproduced herein-below: “13. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma area within the State of Jharkhand, we are of the opinion that only because the head office of the appellant Company was situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court, particularly when the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against the respondent.” 9. In light of the facts discussed above and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kalyan Banerjee (supra), we have no hesitation to hold that this High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain either the writ petition or the writ appeal. 10. The order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside as it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The appellant would be at liberty to raise his grievance before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. 11. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. 12. 10. The order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside as it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The appellant would be at liberty to raise his grievance before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. 11. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. 12. In view of the above, interim relief granted on 14.06.2022 stands vacated.