Supreme Court agrees to hear Centre's challenge to Calcutta HC ruling against Alapan Bandyopadhyay case transfer

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear the Central government's appeal against the Calcutta High Court verdict which set aside the order of the Principal Bench 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)..The Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar will hear the matter on November 22..Appearing for the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted,"This is a disturbing order both on the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and some observations made. He [Bandyopadhyay] was called since he was not present at a PM review meeting. He challenged disciplinary proceeding before CAT. Centre sought transfer to Delhi."The SG further argued that the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order against the Chairman of CAT in New Delhi, and that the Delhi High Court could have done so.In response, the Court asked,"The proceedings impacted by the order of CAT were in Calcutta. Therefore, High Court says we have jurisdiction. What is wrong with that?".SG Mehta then said,"Observations made could have never been made. The loose language by litigants is not permitted...writing letters leaking to media is ok..."The Bench replied,"Language we can take note of and we can expunge the same. On merits of the case, main proceedings are filed in Calcutta. The impugned order passed is affecting those proceedings, then Calcutta High Court has jurisdiction. Respondent resides there too."However, Mehta insisted,"Can the person approach another High Court to get the Chairman of CAT order set aside? It has wider ramifications.".The Court then adjourned the matter to November 22. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Bandyopadhyay..By way of background, Bandyopadhyay was serving as 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 for not attending a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister on May 28, 2021 for assessing the loss of life and property caused by the cyclonic storm YAAS. Bandyopadhyay had then moved CAT's Kolkata Bench challenging this decision to start the inquiry. This led to the transfer petition by the Centre before the Principal Bench.On October 22, the CAT 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..In a ruling passed on October 29, the High Court took strong objection to the manner in which the CAT Principal Bench favoured the Central government in transferring Bandyopadhyay's case to itself.In a strongly worded order, a Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rabindranath Samanta said that the modus operandi of the Centre to get the case transferred to the Principal Bench reeked 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 judgment said..The Centre has now moved the Supreme Court claiming that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass the order. Defending the move to transfer the case to the Principal Bench, the Centre has stated,"Cause of action has arisen entirely in New Delhi and therefore, jurisdiction would lie with the Principal Bench, New Delhi since charge sheet was issued from New Delhi. Further, in times of the ongoing pandemic, it would be convenient that the said records which are available at New Delhi, can be shown to the Ld. Tribunal if the matter is transferred to the Principal Bench at New Delhi."Further, it was contended that any challenge to the CAT order would lie before the Delhi High Court, and not the Calcutta High Court..Another argument raised was that the Chairman of the CAT has sui generis power under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to transfer a case from one Bench to another. Moreover, it was argued that Rule 6 of the CAT Rules, 1987 could not have been interpreted by the High Court so has to take away this power of the Chairman..The Centre has also taken exception to the "intemperate, baseless, unfounded and unjust remarks" made against the CAT Chairman in the High Court order."The Hon’ble High Court erred in making the completely baseless, unfounded and unjust allegation that the Ld. Tribunal was “overzealous” to “cater to the fiat of the Government” when all that the Ld. Tribunal had done was perform its duty and exercise its jurisdiction conferred under the Act and in the manner prescribed by the Act......It is trite principle and law that Hon’ble Judges may not misuse their judicial authority by making intemperate comments or scathing derogatory remarks against another judicial officer acting in course of her official functions and duties. Such scandalous, disparaging and intemperate remarks as have been made by the Hon’ble High Court against the Ld. Chairman, CAT in the instant matter undermines the majesty of the Court and has an adverse effect on the administration of justice.".Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor Generals of India Vikramjit Banerjee & KM Nataraj appeared on behalf of the Union of India.Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Abhaya Behera and Advocate Kunal Vajani instructed by the team of Fox & Mandal led by Debanjan Mandal along with Sandip Dasgupta, Kunal Mimani (AOR), Mahima Cholera, Kartikey Bhatt and Gokula Krishnan appeared on behalf of Alapan Bandyopadhyay..[Read Order]