1 / 2 2026:CGHC:11600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9697 of 2025 Ravi Shrivastava S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava Age 41, Ward No.15, Sargipal Para Kondagaon (C.G.) Pin-494226 ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Bank Of Baroda Represented Through Its Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer Corporate Centre, C-25. G- Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Mumbai- 400051 2 - The General Manager And Appellate Authority Bank Of Bank Of Baroda Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400051 3 - The Deputy Zonal Head (Dgm) And Disciplinary Authority Bank Of Barodao Zonal Office Bob Towers, Opp. Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380006 4 - The Chief Manager (Hrm) Bank Of Baroda Head Office Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400051 5 - The Regional Manager Bank Of Baroda Regional Office, Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - The Branch Head Bank Of Baroda Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Y. Vijay, Advocate along with Mr. Adeesh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 11.03.2026 2 / 2 1. Counsel for the respondent raises an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction stating that the petitioner was an employee of the Bank. While he was posted in Ahmedabad Zone after his transfer, Departmental inquiry was initiated against him for his unauthorized absence and the disciplinary authority of the Ahmedabad Zone has passed an order of termination and therefore, the cause of action arose is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad, Gujarat and therefore, the petitioner can file the proceedings challenging the order of termination within the Court having the territorial jurisdiction at Gujarat. 2. Counsel for the petitioner do not dispute the factual submission made by counsel for the respondent that the termination order is passed by the disciplinary authority at Ahmedabad Gujarat. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is having remedy to file the proceedings against his termination before the Court having the territorial jurisdiction at Gujarat. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE