SC sets aside HC verdict on former WB chief secretary Bandopadhyay's plea

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Calcutta High Court verdict quashing an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal to transfer an application by former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandopadhyay from Kolkata to New Delhi.

Holding that the HC verdict passed on October 29 last year was without jurisdiction, the apex court also expunged some "scathing and disparaging remarks" made against the principal bench of the tribunal in the order saying they were "unwarranted" and avoidable, "being sharp reaction on unfounded assumptions".

A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and C T Ravikumar, while allowing the Centre's appeal against the high court verdict, granted liberty to Bandyopadhyay to assail the tribunal's order before the jurisdictional high court.

In the instant case, the High Court at Calcutta has usurped jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi., even after taking note of the fact that the Principal Bench of the tribunal does not lie within its territorial jurisdiction, the bench said.

In the circumstances, based on our conclusion, the impugned judgment and final order.passed by the High Court at Calcutta is to be held as one passed without jurisdiction and hence, it is ab initio void. Accordingly, it is set aside, the bench said in its 37-page judgement.

The apex court delivered the verdict on the Centre's plea challenging the high court order which was passed on a plea filed by Bandyopadhyay.

Bandyopadhyay had moved the Kolkata bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in a matter related to attending a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss the effects of cyclone Yaas' at the Kalaikunda Air Force station on May 28 last year.

The proceedings were initiated by the Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance and Pensions.

The Centre had thereafter moved a plea before the tribunal's principal bench at New Delhi seeking transfer of the matter from Kolkata Bench to the principal bench.

The Centre's plea was allowed by the chairman of the tribunal, sitting at the principal bench, and this order was challenged by Bandyopadhyay before the Calcutta High Court.

In its verdict, the apex court noted that the Centre had also raised grievance that the high court made some harsh or disparaging remarks in the judgment against the tribunal's chairman.

The bench observed that the high court had found undue haste in the matter of disposal of the plea and that persuaded it to make such scathing observations and remarks in fact, against the principal bench of the tribunal.

It said a perusal of the materials on record would reveal that plea filed before the high court was also passed with almost equal speed.

On our careful scanning of the circumstances and situations obtained in this case, we are persuaded to think that no exceptional ground(s) exists in the case on hand to make scathing and disparaging remarks and observations against the principal bench of the tribunal, the top court said.

It said the order was passed by the tribunal's chairman on a formal application moved by the Centre and after hearing both the parties.

The bench said as a matter of law, the chairman could pass an order of transfer under section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, suo motu.

To observe sobriety, we say that the remarks made by the high court were unwarranted, uncalled for and avoidable being sharp reaction on unfounded assumptions, it said.

Ergo, we have no hesitation to hold that they were wholly unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the correctness or otherwise of the order of transfer. Hence, they are liable to be expunged. We do so, it said.

The top court, while referring to section 25 of the Act, noted that an independent application for transfer of an original application filed and pending before any bench of the tribunal could be filed and the power to transfer lies with the chairman.

It said this section mandates that if such an application is made, notice of it has to be given to the opposite party.

Referring to an earlier judgement delivered by the apex court, the bench noted it is crystal clear that the principal bench of the tribunal at New Delhi falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Needless to say that the power of judicial review of an order transferring an original application pending before a bench of the tribunal to another bench under section 25 of the Act can be judicially reviewed only by a division bench of the high court within whose territorial jurisdiction the bench passing the same, falls, it said.

The bench made clear that it has not made any finding or observation regarding the correctness of the October 22 last year order passed by principal bench of the tribunal.

In its verdict, the high court had also directed the Kolkata bench of the tribunal to expedite the hearing of Bandyopadhyay's application and dispose of it at the earliest.

Bandyopadhyay, who was not released by the state government, chose to retire on May 31, 2021, his original date of superannuation before having been given an extension of three months from that date.