Alapan Bandyopadhyay Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order Which Quashed CAT Principal Bench's Transfer Order
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the special leave petition filed by the Centre challenging Calcutta High Court's order of setting aside the order passed by the CAT Principal bench to transfer former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay's petition from Kolkata bench to New Delhi.The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar, which had reserved judgment on November...
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the special leave petition filed by the Centre challenging Calcutta High Court's order of setting aside the order passed by the CAT Principal bench to transfer former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay's petition from Kolkata bench to New Delhi.
The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar, which had reserved judgment on November 29, 2021, set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had granted relief to Bandyopadhyay. The Supreme Court held that the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to set aside the transfer order passed by CAT Principal Bench at New Delhi.
The bench however has granted liberty to Bandyopadhyay to approach the jurisdictional High Court to challenge the order of CAT Principal Bench.
The Court also expunged the remarks made by Calcutta High Court against the CAT Principal Chairman and Central Government.
"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. 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", the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar observed.
Also Read - Tribunal Decisions Can Be Scrutinized Only By A Jurisdictional High Court : Supreme Court
The Solicitor General had submitted that the Calcutta High Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to set aside the order of transfer passed by the CAT Chairperson located in New Delhi. The SG replied that this issue could be raised only by the Delhi High Court, which has jurisdiction over CAT Principal Bench, and not the Calcutta High Court.
The Solicitor General had also taken objection to the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the Union of India and the CAT Chairperson.
"Your Lordships have always said that the High Court in its observations needs to be sober and circumspect. Personal opinions and political views do not have any place while exercising judicial functions.With due respect to the office of the constitutional court, this was not expected", the SG submitted.
The SG said that he was taking serious exceptions to the observations of the High Court such as the Union's modus operandi "reeks of mala fides" and the CAT Principal Bench was "overzealous" to cater to the fiat of the government and paid "obeisance to the diktat of the Union of India".
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Bandyopadhyay, conveyed to the bench that the adverse remarks could be expunged.
"Your lordship can rectify the observations without hurting anyone", Singhvi submitted at the outset. On the question of territorial jurisdiction, Singhvi submitted that Bandyopadhyay was a person who was always a resident of Kolkata and belonged to West Bengal cadre in IAS and was posted there throughout his service. After retirement also, he is residing at Kolkata. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after his retirement.
Singhvi referred to Rule 6(2) of the CAT(Procedure) Rules and Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to argue that the application was maintainable before the CAT Kolkata Bench. He referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan and Sadhna Kundu cases. The reliance of L Chandrakumar is misleading, as the said decision has not taken into consideration Article 226(2).
Case Title: Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12