Uttarakhand High Court sets aside CAT principal Bench order allowing Centre's plea to transfer case from Nainital to Delhi

The Uttarakhand High Court last week pulled up the principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for allowing Centre's plea to transfer a case from Nainital circuit bench to its principal seat in Delhi. This is the second indictment of CAT by a high court for allowing allowing Centre's request to transfer cases from its regional benches. .On Friday, the Calcutta High Court had come down heavily on the CAT's principal Bench for paying "obeisance" to Centre's diktat as it had allowed government's plea to transfer a case filed by former West Bengal chief secretary, Alappan Bandyopadhyay to New Delhi. The Calcutta High Court had said that the Centre's modus operandi reeked of mala fides..While quashing the order dated December 12, 2020, a Bench of Chief Justice RS Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma of the Uttarakhand High Court held that all the benches of the CAT have same jurisdiction, same power and authority as the Principal Bench “which can never be allowed to robe itself with superior authority which was never given to it by the (Administrative Tribunals) Act”.The High Court held that the Section 5 of the Act bestows the same jurisdiction, power and authority upon different Benches located across the country and the Supreme Court has also opined that the tribunal has power to hear a challenge to any Act except the principal Act.“In fact, there is no provision under the Act which bestows the sole power to hear the challenges to a policy decision only on the Principal Bench, and not on any other Bench of the CAT,” the Court said..The Court further added that even the parliament has treated all the benches as the same. Had the Parliament been of the view that the issues of nationwide importance and functioning of the Central government should be heard by the Principal Bench then a necessary provision would have been enacted by it, the Court said.“Since the Parliament has treated all the Benches of the CAT as alike, even cases of nationwide repercussion, or having great impact on the functioning of the Central Government can, indeed be decided by other Benches of CAT. Such issues need not be relegated to the Principal Bench,” the Court said in its order..The matter before the Uttarakhand High Court related to an original application (OA) filed by whistleblower IFS Officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi before the Nainital bench in August last year. The OA had challenged the Centre’s scheme of allowing lateral entry of private professionals into government service at the rank of joint-secretary.Chaturvedi had argued that the system is arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory against officers who have worked and trained extensively in the government from grass root level. The officer therefore, sought restraint on any future hiring from the private sector. The plea had also challenged the constitutional validity of the 360 degree appraisal system considered for appointment of an officer for the post of joint-secretary.The Centre however moved a transfer petition before the Principal Bench which allowed the request and transferred the case to itself in December 2020. The decision was challenged by Chaturvedi before the Uttarakhand HC..The Centre informed the High Court that the transfer petition was filed considering the possibility that the same policy might be challenged before other benches. Assistant Solicitor General (ASG), Rakesh Thapliyal, further argued that no cause of action had arisen in Uttarakhand and therefore the Nainital bench had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the petition. He also submitted that since all the files and relevant witnesses are in Delhi, it is in the interest of justice that the case is transferred to Delhi.Appearing in person, Chaturvedi contended that the government’s submission that the same policy might be challenged before other benches is hypothetical since it was never pleaded before the principal bench. He also submitted that as far as the files are concerned, Centre has the means to transfer them to Nainital and it would be much difficult for him to travel to Delhi on each listing day since he is posted in Uttarakhand and appearing in person even before the CAT..The High Court rejected the Centre's argument saying that the names in question were forwarded by the State government, their records are kept in the State and the policy affects the petitioner’s right to be considered for the position. Therefore, the cause of action does arise in Uttarakhand, it said.It further added that the balance of convenience is also in the favour of Chaturvedi since he would have to travel from Haldwani to New Delhi which would incur not only financial expenditure but also time and energy which would prevent him from discharging his official duties."In the present case, while considering the prayers of the Union of India to transfer the case from Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench, New Delhi, the learned Tribunal should have considered the convenience of both the parties. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the hardship caused to the petitioner if the O.A. were to be transferred from Nainital Circuit Bench to New Delhi," the High Court said while allowing the plea..[Read Judgment].[Alapan Bandyopadhyay] CAT principal Bench paid obeisance to Centre's diktat by allowing transfer of case to Delhi: Calcutta High Court