On 29th October, a bench of Calcutta High Court consisting of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rabindranath Samanta showed resentment towards the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) act of favoring the Union Government in transferring Alpan Bandyopadhyay's case from Calcutta to New Delhi.

 The Bench of the High Court set aside the order of CAT while stating that, "promptness is appreciated, but over-zealousness to cater to the fiat of the Government, be it Central or State, is not, by courts of law as a tradition.”

Facts of the case:

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner who was the Chief Secretary of the Chief Minister of West Bengal who worked efficiently during the after disaster of super-cyclone “YAAS”. Thereafter, the Chief Minister took permission from the Prime Minister to excuse herself and the writ petitioner from the meeting to continue her pre-scheduled survey of other cyclone-affected areas of the State of West Bengal. However, in the late evening of May 28, 2021, the State Government received a communication from the Central Government intimating the State that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had approved the placement of service of the petitioner with the Government of India and requesting the State Government to release the petitioner with immediate effect to report to New Delhi by 10 AM on May 31, 2021.

On October 7, 2021, the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). However, at about 5 p.m. on October 21, 2021, the advocates for the petitioner received a transfer petition whereby the Union of India had prayed for transfer of O.A. No. 1619 of 2021 from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench of the CAT at New Delhi. The Tribunal passed an order on October 22, 2021 itself, allowing the transfer petitioner finally and directing the Registrar/Registry Office to intimate the order to the Kolkata Bench of the CAT. The Principal Bench further directed O.A. 1619 of 2021 to appear as the first item before it on October 27, 2021 for admission.

Contention of the petition:

The following contention has been submitted by the petitioner:

  1. The petitioner contended that such decision was taken without the consent of the petitioner and/or the State Government, although the petitioner had all along belonged to the West Bengal Cadre of the IAS and that no empanelment or post was offered to the petitioner at all.
  2. It was also contended that such order was patently illegal and without jurisdiction.
  3. It was submitted that the petitioner was served with a notice of less than 24 hours refusing to grant him reasonable time to come ready with a comprehensive objection.

Observation and the judgement of the court:

The following observation has been made by hon'ble Court:

  1. Section 25 provides two modes of exercise of the Chairman’s power to transfer – on the application of any of the parties and suo motu. However, if such power is exercised on the application of a party, such order can be passed only “after notice to the parties” and “after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard”.
  2. The unfettered option of the writ petitioner, having been superannuated, to litigate before the Kolkata Bench under Rule 6 (2) of the CAT Rules was curtailed without rhyme or reason.

In the light of the above, the court held that the Principal Bench of the CAT acted entirely without jurisdiction in exercising the power conferred specifically on the Chairman. It also held that the entire modus operandi adopted by the Union of India reeks of mala fides and thus set aside the impugned transfer order dated October 22, 2021 passed by the Principal Bench, CAT.

Picture Source :

 
Anusree