G.N. Ray, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of punishment passed in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner by way of stoppage of two annual increments for the years 1987 and 1988 with cumulative effect in terms of Clause 8(1) and 4(b) of Andhra Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations and the order dated 25th May, 1987 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, and the order passed by the Reviewing Authority dated 4th August, 1988 affirming the aforesaid decisions of the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was appointed in the Andhra Bank as Rural Credit Officer on 10th February, 1982 in the Bhubeneswar Region. The petitioner contends that under the Andhra Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1982, he was entitled to leave travel concession and he was entitled to travel to his home town or to any place in India by the shortest route once in each block of 2 years. On 6th July, 1985, the petitioner applied for such leave travel concession to the regional office of the said Bank at Bhubaneswar for travelling from Bhubaneswar to Kanyakumari via Madras and from Kanyakumari to Bhubaneswar via Madras. In the said application, the petitioner requested for payment by way of advance amount to the tune of Rs. 8,500/ -. On the basis of such letter, the leave travel allowance was allowed to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he has travelled in two taxies from Bhubaneswar to Kanyakumari along with his family members from 11th August, 1985 to 22nd August, 1985. The aforesaid taxis were arranged by M/s. Pacific Tour & Travel Agent of Bhubaneswar and the petitioner obtained taxi hire bills and receipts from the said Travel Agent. The petitioner has contended that after his return from the four, he submitted to the Bank the travelling allowance bills along with the documents, but the respondent no. 4 in the purported exercise of the Disciplinary Authority, 1986 to the petitioner, inter alia, alleging that it had been brought to the notice of the Bank that the petitioner had committed grave and serious irregularities while working at the regional office at Bhubaneswar in availing the L.T.C. and tried to cheat the Bank to the tune of Rs.9,545/ - and such conduct was unbecoming of a responsible Bank Officer. It was alleged in the charge -sheet that the petitioner submitted a false and fake bill for huge amount without undertaking the journey, thereby misusing the LTC facility and the petitioner had tried to cheat the Bank for illegal gain. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge -sheet on 8th September, 1986, inter alia, confirming that he had gone to Kanyakumari and stayed there at Gopinivas Lodge and while he was at Kanyakumari, he released a telegram to the Regional Manager, Bhubaneswar of the said Bank for extension of leave also. The petitioner contended in the reply that the taxi bills submitted before the Bank were genuine and he had not misused the L.T.C. facility in any way. The petitioner has contended that inspite of such reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority without holding any enquiry and without giving any chance to defend the petitioner inflicted the aforesaid punishment of stoppage of two annual increments for the years 1987 and 1988 with cumulative effect flagrant violation of all the principles of natural justice. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal, but the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of Disciplinary Authority without considering the merit of the case and without disclosing the reason which had weighed the Appellate Authority in confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner made an application for review, but the Reviewing Authority viz. the respondent no. 2 confirmed the punishment without giving any reason and petitioner has alleged that such non -speaking order was passed by the Reviewing Authority in a mechanical way without any application of mil. It may be noted in this connection that on and from July, 1987, the petitioner had been transferred to Calcutta Zonal Office and the respondent no. 5 is the present Disciplinary authority of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he could not move the Court earlier because of the financial stringency.
(2.) The writ petition was moved with a notice to the respondents and Mr. Dipak Ghosh, the learned counsel appeared for the respondents Nos 1 to 5. A preliminary objection was raised by the said learned counsel for the respondents as to the maintainability of the instant writ petition before this Court on the contention that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such the writ petition is not maintainable in this Court and the Court should, therefore, dismiss the writ petition on the ground of non -maintainability.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention that the instant writ petition is not maintainable before this Court contended that subject matter of charge -sheet relates to submission of false T.A. bill in connection with the leave travel concession when the petitioner was working at Bhubaneswar. The charge -sheet in question was served when the petitioner was in Bombay by the Disciplinary Authority at Hyderabad. The petitioner submitted the reply to the Disciplinary Authority at Hyderabad and the Disciplinary Authority Hyderabad passed the order of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments and the same was communicated to the petitioner when he was working in Bombay. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Assistant General Manager at Hyderabad while he was working in Bombay and the said Appellate Authority at Hyderabad passed the order and communicated the same to the petitioner when the petitioner was working at Bombay. The petitioner applied to the Reviewing Authority at Hyderabad directly. The Reviewing Authority at Hyderabad passed an order, but the same instead of being communicated to Zonal Office was directly sent to the petitioner at Calcutta. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that more communication of the decision of the Reviewing Authority to the petitioner at Calcutta cannot be constituted as a part of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel has contended that the jurisdiction to issue writs against persons and authorities is extensive to territorial jurisdiction and in support of such contention reference has been made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court: i) Hari Vishnu v/s. Ahmed Ishaque. reported in : AIR 1955 SC 233; ii) Election Commission v/s. Vankata Rao. Reported in : AIR 1953 SC 210: iii) Madan Gopal v/s. Secretary, Govt, of Orissa, reported in : AIR 1962 SC 1513.;