Read Time: 12 minutes

The Calcutta High Court had set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal on October 29 which had transferred the former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay’s case from the Central Administrative Tribunal bench of Kolkata to Delhi and had instead asked the Kolkata bench to decide the case expeditiously.

A Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar today reserved for orders, the plea filed by the centre against the order of Calcutta High Court setting aside the order of Principal bench Central Administrative Tribunal transferring the proceeding pertaining to Alpan Bandopadhyay from Calcutta to Delhi.

When the hearing for the case commenced, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (SG) submitted that Bandhopadhyay refused to participate in a meeting which the Prime Minister was attending and that an action was taken against him for this. He submitted that while he does not want canvass the merits of the case before the court, his contention is that the Calcutta High Court could not have interfered in the order of the Principal Bench of CAT passed at Delhi.

The SG argued that the Chairperson of the Principal Bench, CAT exercised his administrative power akin to that of "master of roster" to transfer the case to Delhi.

The SG read the judgment of the court in Chander Kumar to support his arguments and submitted that the powers under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily.

It was argued by the SG that the impugned order clearly falls in the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and not the Calcutta High Court since it was passed in Delhi.

The court at this point questioned if Calcutta High Court will have the jurisdiction to set aside the order of chairman if he had sat in Calcutta CAT while passing the orders. The SG answered in the positive and further submitted that this is an anomalous situation wherein there are 5 petitions pertaining to Bandopadhyay in Calcutta Cat and one of the parties moved for the transfer of the petitions to Delhi, while he succeeded, the others are aggrieved by it.

The SG submitted that the Calcutta High Court while passing the order has considered certain facts that were not impugned before it. He further submitted that the scope of the petition before the Calcutta High Court was limited to the order of transfer, however the court in its order recorded certain things that were unwarranted.

It was argued by the SG that the Supreme Court in many of its orders has held that the High Court will have to sober in its observations and that the political ideologies cannot play any role in judicial duties and that the observation from the High Court was not expected at all.

The SG argued that the Calcutta High Court is accusing the chairman of the tribunal it its order and that the tribunal in which transfer powers are vested will have to see where the evidence is coming from. The SG further argued that he is taking a very serious exception to certain observations made in the order of the High Court.  It was further submitted that as a party to the proceedings, the Union is entitled to argue its case, however the court has misconstrued this as diktat.  He submitted that the order of the High Court has political overtone which should have been avoided.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, appearing for Bandopadhyay submitted that his arguments will centre only be on the aspect of jurisdiction. He submitted that Bandopadhyay is a senior IAS officer from 1987 batch who has served only in West Bengal and nowhere else.

Singhvi argued that as per section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals act, the Kolkata Bench had the jurisdiction to deal with the service. He submitted that under 6(2) of the CAT (procedure) rule, a retired officer can file a petition where he resides and that this is the reason behind having benches in different cities.

It was argued that the object of this rule is to benefit the government servant and not the government itself. Singhvi argued that Bandopadhyay acted in accordance with law and acting in accordance with law is not a ground to set aside an order. He further argued that a mere order of transferring a matter  another bench of a tribunal cannot oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

Singhvi argued that the transfer power is there is only for the convenience of the officer even at the cost of inconvenience of the government. The central government is “Sarva vyapi.” He submitted that merely because the documents pertaining to Bandopadhyay are in Delhi, the case cannot be completely transferred to Delhi. He argued that the sole witness is the officer of the government of West Bengal.

The court on hearing the arguments reserved the case for judgments and also directed that the enquiry against Bandopadhyay be not pursued thill the orders in the matter are pronounced.

Bandopadhyay moved the Calcutta High Court seeking the setting aside of the decision of the CAT Principal Bench. The Calcutta High Court, while setting the order aside noted,
 “It is unfortunate that the Principal Bench of the CAT nurtured such efforts by passing the impugned transfer order, thereby paying obeisance to the diktat of the Union of India, which has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and various High Courts not to be a favoured litigant.”

Bandopadhyay, the former chief secretary to West Bengal was called asked to report to Delhi on disciplinary grounds. However he was not released by the West Bengal State Government. Bandopadhyay moved the CAT at Kolkata after the Central Government decided to inquire into his case, Central Government moved a petition in CAT Principal Bench at Delhi seeking his case be transferred to Delhi because the decision to conduct enquiry was taken in Delhi and that he belonged to Central Cadre.

Case title: Union of India VS Alpan Bandopadhyay