Cause of action in disciplinary proceedings arises at the site of initiation, not the site of alleged misconduct.

The applicant, a retired General Manager of Telecom (BSNL), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, following his retirement.

The charges pertained to his tenure as GMTD in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

The formal charge sheet (Memorandum dated 14.12.2010) was issued by the President while the applicant was posted in Guwahati, Assam.

On 26.05.2015, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of 10% pension withdrawal for three years.

The applicant, a resident of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh at the time of filing, challenged this order before the Jodhpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Jodhpur Bench.

Whether the Jodhpur Bench of the CAT has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application when the applicant resides outside its jurisdiction and the disciplinary action was initiated elsewhere.

Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which stipulates that an application may be filed either where the applicant is ordinarily residing at the time of filing (for retired employees) or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen.

In disciplinary matters, the cause of action typically arises at the place where the disciplinary proceedings are initiated or where the order is passed as defined in Virendra Singh v. Union of India & ors. and Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed both criteria under Rule 6. First, the applicant was residing in Allahabad (UP) at the time of filing, not within the jurisdiction of the Jodhpur Bench.

Regarding "cause of action," the Tribunal reasoned that while the alleged misconduct occurred in Sri Ganganagar (within Jodhpur's jurisdiction), this fact alone does not constitute the "arising" of the cause of action for a challenge to a disciplinary penalty.

The cause of action originated when the President issued the Memorandum in 2010 (while the applicant was in Assam) and culminated in the penalty order issued in 2015. The Tribunal clarified that functioning at a specific location does not ipso facto grant jurisdiction if the disciplinary steps and final orders occurred elsewhere.

The court ordered the return of the application to the applicant for presentation before the appropriate forum. It further directed that the time spent pursuing the case before the Jodhpur Bench be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing before the correct Bench. The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.