petitioner, and the consequent order of the Union of India dated 14.10.2024, which he states was passed in New Delhi. It may be noted that HPCL was not represented before this Court when the order dated 09.09.2024 was passed. The Court noted the submission on behalf of the petitioner that there was no provision for making a representation to Union of India under the applicable rules, but directed Union of India to take a decision on his representation. It was also clearly noted in the said decision taken by the Union of India, that it was not designated in respect of disciplinary proceedings of employees of HPCL as the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority or the Reviewing Authority, all of whom were within HPCL itself. The representation was therefore disposed of, relegating the petitioner to his remedies of review. The said decision dated 14.10.2024 has not been challenged in this writ petition. 9. Upon consideration of the aforesaid material, I am of the view that no part of the cause of action in the present case has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that, even otherwise, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens .
