The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the SLP filed against the order of the Calcutta High court where it set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal order to transfer former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandopadhyay’s petition from Kolkata to Delhi.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta started his submissions by stating that the judgement passed by the High Court is highly disturbing both on territorial jurisdiction and also due to observations made. He submitted that the Calcutta High Court has no jurisdiction over the order passed by the Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi.
He further stated,
“He is an all-India cadre officer and when the Prime Minister went, he didn’t participate. He was called to the Centre; he did not join. Right now, my lords have not examined the chargesheet is a fact. But the chargesheet was issued. He challenged the departmental action against him before the Calcutta bench of the CAT. The Central government filed an application seeking transfer that for A, B, C, D reasons, everything has taken place in Delhi and therefore transfer this matter to Delhi. We didn’t argue on the merits of the chargesheet… refer to the page where the powers of the chairman of CAT is written… It is very disturbing observations which are made in the impugned order against the chairman also.”
The bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar observed that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that since the officer has resigned, he can file the petition at the place where he resides. The bench called the order of the High Court tenable. “So what if the Calcutta High Court passed an order? The original petition which was going to be transferred was filed in Calcutta only. The cause of action arose there.”
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Bandopadhyaya, submitted that he will also file a written note to assist the court. The matter has been adjourned to November 22.
Alapan Bandopadhyay joined the IAS in 1987 and thereafter worked all through with the Government of West Bengal till his superannuation on May 31, 2021. The West Bengal Government made a request to the Central Government seeking agreement for extension of his service for three months, for which the Government of West Bengal issued a notification for extension of his service as Chief Secretary.
In May 2021, when Yaas cyclone hit parts of West Bengal and Odisha. The writ petitioner visited the affected areas with the Chief Minister of Bengal and also met the Prime Minister during his visit. On May 28, 2021, the State Government received a communication from the Central Government intimating the State that the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet had approved the placement of service of the Alapan with the Government of India and requested the State Government to release him with immediate effect to report to New Delhi on May 31, 2021.
Also Read: Supreme Court adjourns plea seeking CBSE, CISCE exams in hybrid mode instead of offline
The petitioner alleges that such decision was taken without his consent or the consent of the State Government, although the petitioner had all along belonged to the West Bengal Cadre of the IAS and that no empanelment or post was offered to the petitioner at all.
The State Government conveyed its decision not to release the petitioner to the Central Government and issued a notification cancelling the earlier departmental notification dated May 25, 2021 by which the extension of service of the petitioner had been notified. Further, the Central Government asked the State Government to release the petitioner for reporting to New Delhi to which the State Government responded by informing that the petitioner had resigned in the afternoon of May 31, 2021.
A show-cause notice under Section 51 of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the petitioner, to which the petitioner replied in writing on June 3. After 13 days, a major penalty chargesheet was issued to the petitioner by the Union of India, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) under Rule 8 of the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, read with Rule 6 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules related to the incident which took place in the meeting at the Kalaikunda Air Force Station.
An Inquiry Authority was appointed on August 31, 2021, which issued a notice fixing a preliminary hearing on October 18, 2021 at New Delhi and Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Kolkata Bench of CAT.
Also Read: Ration at doorstep: Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Delhi HC’s interim order
Later, the Union of India filed a transfer petition from Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi which was allowed and Alapan challenged the same in the High Court, Calcutta.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the transfer order by stating,
“The impugned order of the Principal Bench not only violates the legal right conferred on the writ petitioner under Rule 6 of the CAT Rules, 1987, read with Sections 35 and 36 of the 1985 Act, as well as the petitioner’s fundamental right of equality before the law, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, which is the ground norm of the Indian legal fabric but also leaves a bad taste in the mouth due to the mode of operation of a quasi-judicial (if not judicial) authority and also poses a threat to the federal structure as envisioned by the makers of the Constitution of India.”
The High Court while showing disappointment in the Principal Branch of CAT observed, “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. Rather, the responsibility of meting out justice and serving the cause of justice is on a much higher pedestal for the Union of India than an ordinary individual litigant.”