Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 12

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Calcutta)
A.M. KHANWILKAR, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Alapan Bandyopadhyay - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18338 of 2021)
Decided On : 06-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv. Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Mahima Cholera, Adv. Mr. Gokula Krishnan, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Power of judicial review of an order transferring an Original Application pending before a Bench of Tribunal to another Bench under Section 25 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can be judicially reviewed only by a Division Bench of High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction Bench passing the same, falls.

Headnote:
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Sections 19 and 25 – Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 – Rule 6 – Constitution of India – Articles 226/227 and 323A/323B – Transfer of Original Application – Power of judicial review of an order transferring an Original Application pending before a Bench of Tribunal to another Bench under Section 25 of Act can be judicially reviewed only by a Division Bench of High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction Bench passing the same, falls – This unambiguous exposition of law has to be followed scrupulously while deciding 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 invocation of Section 25 of Act – Law declared by Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by High Courts by looking into bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to High Court within ambit of Article 226(2) of Constitution – In instant case, High Court at Calcutta has usurped jurisdiction to entertain Writ Petition, challenging order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in P.T., even after taking note of fact that Principal Bench of Tribunal does not lie within its territorial jurisdiction – Impugned judgment and final order passed by High Court at Calcutta set aside. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Seminal question for consideration is, whether the bundle of facts that constitute cause of action for filing an Original Application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and determinative of the place of its filing would remain as the decisive factor in case such an application is subsequently transferred from the Bench where it was filed to another Bench of the Tribunal falling under territorial jurisdiction of another High Court, to ascertain jurisdictional High Court to exercise the power of judicial review qua order of transfer passed by the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and final order in WPCT No.78/2021 passed by the High Court at Calcutta is to be held as one passed without jurisdiction and hence, it is ab initio void. Accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition being WPCT No.78/2021 filed before the High Court at Calcutta is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner therein/the respondent herein to assail the same before jurisdictional High Court, if so advised.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUAMR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A legal conundrum calls for resolution in this case. The seminal question that created it is: ‘whether the bundle of facts that constitute the cause of action for filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) and determinative of the place of its filing would remain as the decisive factor in case such an application is subsequently transferred from the Bench where it was filed to another Bench of the Tribunal falling under the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court, to ascertain the jurisdictional High Court to exercise the power of judicial review qua the order of transfer passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act’.

3. The Appellant assails the final judgment and order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No.78/2021 whereby the High Court set aside the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (New Delhi) in P.T.No.215/2021 transferring O.A.No.1619/2021, filed by the respondent herein, from Kolkata Bench to its files at the Principal Bench (New Delhi). In fact, order in P.T.No.215/2021 was passed by the Chairman of the Tribunal in exercise of the power under Section 25 of the Act. The respondent herein, who was the then Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal (since superannuated as an IAS officer), filed O.A.No.1619/2021 before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide charge memo dated 16.06.2021 alleging failure to attend a review meeting chaired by the Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India on 28.05.2021 for assessing the loss of life, damage to property and infrastructure caused by the cyclonic storm ‘YAAS’. He was charged thereunder for failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and for exhibiting conduct unbecoming of a public servant. Pending consideration of the stated O.A. the Appellant herein moved a Transfer Petition being P.T.No.215/2021 under Section 25 of the Act, before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi seeking its transfer from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench. That petition was allowed by the Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting at the Principal Bench and the challenge of which ultimately led to the passing of the impugned final judgment and order dated 29.10.2021 by the High Court. Since we are confining the consideration only on the question as to which is the jurisdictional High Court having the power for judicial review as relates the order of transfer passed in P.T.No.215/2021 it is un-essential to refer to, in detail, the various contentions raised in the stated O.A. to challenge the disciplinary proceedings as also the contentions raised before the High Court in WPCT No.78/2021 to challenge the correctness of the stated order of transfer. In troth, consideration of correctness or otherwise of the decision of the High Court on merits would become inept if the High Court at Calcutta is found lacking jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the order in P.T.No.215/2021 passed under Section 25 of the Act.

4. To properly consider this appeal, it is only appropriate to refer to Section 25 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (for brevity, the ‘Procedure Rules’). They read thus: -

25. Power of Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another.-On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard, or on his own motion without such notice, the chairman may transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench.”

“Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 :

6. Place of filing applications.-