[2026:RJ-JP:2630] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8401/2015 Hukum Chand S/o Sh. Puran Chand aged 48 years, R/o House No. 1257/26, Nayi Basti Bhagwan Ganj, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus Union Bank Of India through it's General Manager Northern Office, Shahid Bhagat Singh Place, Bangala Sahib Marg-New Delhi 110001 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Shekhawat for Mr. Govind Upadhyaya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/01/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Assistant General Manager, Department of Personnel Industrial Relations Division Central Office, Mumbai and has also challenged the appellate order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority at Mumbai. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the entire writ petition is silent qua the fact as to how, it has been filed before this Court whereas, cause of action has never accrued to the petitioner in the territory of State of Rajasthan. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil [2026:RJ-JP:2630] (2 of 2) [CW-8401/2015] Shukla Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr., 2018 (2) RLW 1081 (Raj.) where, after examining the provisions of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India as well as the expression 'cause of action' in the light of judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. M/s Swaika Properties& Anr., (1985) 3 SCC 217, Kusam Ingots & Alloys Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456, Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2006) 6 SCC 207, Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 329 & Rajendra Chingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 457 it has been held that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction where, no 'cause of action' accrued to the petitioner within the territory of this State. 4. In the instant case also, the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner outside the territory stated, penalty order as well as appellate order has also been passed at Mumbai. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid judgments, it is clear that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. 5. However, it is made clear that merely dismissing this writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction would not prevent the petitioner from raising the dispute at appropriate forum. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/40