[BREAKING] Alapan Bandyopadhyay case: Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta High Court verdict castigating CAT

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Calcutta High Court verdict which had quashed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) transferring a case filed by former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay from Kolkata to Delhi [Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay]..A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar held that the Calcutta High Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the plea by Bandyopadhyay. "The High Court at Calcutta has usurped jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition (by Bandyopadhyay) 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 Supreme Court ruled.The Court stated in its judgment stated that any decision of the CAT at Delhi, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny "only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal concerned falls.""This unambiguous exposition of law has to be followed scrupulously while deciding the jurisdictional High Court for the purpose of bringing in challenge against an order of transfer of an Original Application from one bench of Tribunal to another bench in the invocation of Section 25 of the Act," the judgment made it clear.The top court, therefore, said that Bandyopadhyay will have the liberty to assail the CAT verdict before the jurisdictional High Court (which is Delhi High Court). The verdict would essentially mean that the plea by Bandyopadhyay challenging an inquiry against him will be heard by CAT's principle bench at Delhi unless Bandyopadhyay moves the Delhi High Court and secures a favourable order from the High Court..The Calcutta High Court had passed a scathing order on October 29, 2021 berating the the principal bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for what it perceived as favouring the Central government in its attempt to transfer a case filed by Bandyopadhyay from Kolkata Bench to New Delhi.Bandyopadhyay was serving as the Chief Secretary when the Centre in May 2021 decided to cut short his tenure with the West Bengal government, and asked him to report to New Delhi, after which he superannuated on May 31.Subsequently, an inquiry was initiated against him by the Centre. Bandyopadhyay had then moved the CAT's Kolkata bench challenging the decision to start the inquiry. This led to the transfer petition by the Centre before the principal bench.On October 22, the principal bench passed an order allowing the transfer petition and directing the registry office to intimate the order to the Kolkata bench of the CAT. Bandyopadhyay then moved the High Court contending that the transfer order was in violation of Rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.The High Court Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rabindranath Samanta said that the modus operandi of Central government to get the case transferred to the principal bench of CAT at New Delhi reeked of mala fides.It was unfortunate that the principal bench nurtured such efforts by allowing Centre's transfer petition, the High Court had said."The entire modus operandi adopted by the Union of India reeks of mala fides. 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," the High Court judgment had said..The Centre had then moved the top court in appeal against the High Court verdict.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre, had submitted before the Supreme Court that a constitutional court raking up the issue of "federal structure", while dealing with a case involving a challenge to a CAT order, should be avoided.Mehta argued that the High court had made accusations against the CAT chairperson."The principal bench prejudged that most of relevant parties will be from New Delhi..Where does the federal structure come into picture? I understand the politicians saying this but a constitutional court? It's a service matter for one officer and the HC says it upsets the federal structure? These observations are covered with political colour that should have been avoided," Mehta had contended..The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court on ground of lack of jurisdiction. The top court underscored that when once a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has declared the law that “all decisions of tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned tribunal falls”, "then it is impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue.".[Read Judgment]