High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed by the Petitioner assailing the order passed by the Tribunal. Petitioner also seeks a direction that Original Application filed by the Petitioner be heard and disposed of by the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench.
Brief Facts:
Petitioner joined IAS in 1987 and was allocated the West Bengal Cadre. On 26.05.2021, a cyclone named as ‘YAAS’ had hit parts of West Bengal and Odisha. On 16.06.2021, a major penalty charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents herein, for not attending the aforesaid meeting, as well as for not apprising the Hon’ble Prime Minister about the hardships and sufferings faced by the people of West Bengal. The Inquiring Authority scheduled a Preliminary hearing. On receipt of the hearing notice, Petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, challenging the charge sheet and the consequential orders thereto appointing the Inquiring Authority, etc. However, in the meantime Respondents herein filed a Transfer Petition before the Tribunal, Principal Bench, under Section 25 of the 1985 Act, seeking transfer of the O.A. filed by the Petitioner, from Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi. The Tribunal, Principal Bench allowed the Transfer Petition. Order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a writ petition, before the Calcutta High Court under Article 226. The Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner and set aside the order of the Tribunal. Respondents herein, challenged the judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the SLP and set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Transfer Order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the Transfer Petition was listed for the first time on 22.10.2021 and despite requests made on behalf of the Petitioner, no opportunity was granted to file objections/reply to the petition or produce the relevant judgments.
It was further contended that the power under Section 25 of the 1985 Act was exercised in violation of principles governing the provisions of the Section itself. The grounds of transfer raised by the Respondents herein, as evident from the Transfer Petition, were that the concerned Department of Union of India is located at New Delhi, the officers who are to defend the matter are also posted at New Delhi, the charge-sheet was issued from New Delhi and the Departmental Inquiry is being held at New Delhi. Thus, it was urged that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the power under Section 25 to transfer cases from one Bench to another is essentially an administrative power of the Chairman of the Tribunal, who is an entity distinct from the Tribunal and exercises administrative powers and such other powers as are expressly conferred on him under the Act. The order impugned herein is purely an administrative order and not a decision or a judgment on the judicial side. Reliance in this regard is placed on certain provisions of the 1985 Act.
It was further contended that the standard of judicial review of a ‘decision’ or ‘judgement’ under Section 14 read with Section 19 of the 1985 Act, cannot be the same as the standard of judicial review of an administrative order passed by a Chairman under Section 25 of the 1985 Act. Further, in a judicial review of an administrative decision, merits of the decision cannot be examined nor can the decision be substituted and the Courts can only exercise a limited jurisdiction of examining the decision-making process.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that a plain reading of Section 25 shows that there is no requirement for giving the parties a chance to file a formal written reply and the provisions of the Section only require a notice to the parties and a hearing, which was done in the present case. In fact, under Section 25, the Chairman can on his own motion, without any notice, transfer any case pending before one Bench for disposal to another Bench.
HC stated that the power of a Chairman of the Tribunal under Section 25 of the 1985 Act is purely an administrative power to transfer cases from one Bench to another, which can be exercised on an application by any party or even on his own motion in a given case and where the facts and circumstances so warrant. HC further stated that Chairman of a Tribunal is an entity distinct from the Tribunal and the administrative powers to transfer a matter are different and separate from the decision-making powers on the judicial side. Therefore, it may not be wrong to hold that the administrative powers are akin to the power of the Master of Roster, who alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate cases.
HC stated that the wide powers conferred on the Chairman to transfer a matter can be clearly understood from the provisions of the Section whereby the Chairman has been conferred the power to transfer a matter from one Bench to another, on his own motion, without any application from any party. Being a purely administrative function, it is neither regulated nor controlled by the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the 1987 Rules.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “while the Petitioner has the option to approach the Bench at a place where he was ordinarily residing at the time of filing the application, however, the Chairman of the Tribunal has the administrative powers to transfer the matter to another Bench, albeit for sound reasons and after notice to and hearing the parties to the lis. This Court finds no infirmity in the exercise of the administrative power, either on the procedural aspects or on the merits. Being purely an administrative power of the Chairman, it is not for this Court to substitute its decision or wisdom for that of the Chairman as no illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity has been found in the decision-making process. The issue will be decided as and when the O.A. is decided by the Tribunal. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.”
Bench: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Case Title: Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India and Anr.
Case Details: W.P.(C) 1028/2022 & CM APPL.2892/2022 (stay)
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :