Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, JJ.
Alapan Bandyopadhyay – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.C.T. No.78 of 2021
Decided On : 29-10-2021
Transfer Order - Jurisdiction - Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, National Disaster Management Act, 2005, AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - The court discussed the legality of the transfer order, the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, and the merits of the transfer order. It found that the transfer order violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equality before the law and set aside the impugned transfer order.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, an IAS officer, was superannuated, and a transfer order was issued by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the transfer order on the grounds of jurisdiction and legality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equality before the law and set aside the impugned transfer order.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the writ petition, the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, and the legality of the transfer order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer order violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equality before the law and set aside the impugned transfer order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned transfer order and directed the Kolkata Bench of the CAT to expedite the hearing of the petitioner's original application.
JUDGMENT :
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) :
1. The brief facts of the case are:
2. The writ petitioner joined the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in the year 1987 and thereafter worked continuously with the Government of West Bengal till his superannuation on May 31, 2021.
3. The West Bengal Government made a request to the Central Government seeking agreement for extension of service of the petitioner for a period of three months from June 1, 2021 to August 31, 2021. The Central Government acceded to such request vide letter dated May 24, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the Government of West Bengal (“State Government”, for short) issued a notification for extension of the petitioner’s service as Chief Secretary, in which post he had been serving immediately prior to his attainment of the age of superannuation, from June 1 to August 31, 2021.
4. On May 26, 2021, the super-cyclone “YAAS” hit parts of West Bengal and Odisha. Despite being in bereavement on the sad demise of the petitioner’s younger brother on May 16, 2021 and nephew, Ritwick Sanyal, on May 20, 2021, both due to Covid-19, the petitioner participated in the emergency visits to different cyclone-affected areas of West Bengal which were scheduled by the Chief Minister, West Bengal, starting from May 28, 2021.
5. Incidentally, on May 28, 2021 itself, the Prime Minister of India also planned to visit the cyclone-affected areas of West Bengal, which included a meeting with the Chief Minister of West Bengal at the Kalaikunda Air Force Station in West Bengal. The Chief Minister, accompanied by the writ petitioner (who was the then Chief Secretary), met the Prime Minister accordingly and handed over a report on the super-cyclone YAAS and discussed relevant matters.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner alleges that thereafter, the Chief Minister took permission from the Prime Minister to excuse herself and the writ petitioner from the meeting to continue her pre-scheduled survey of other cyclone-affected areas of the State of West Bengal.
7. However, in the late evening of May 28, 2021, the State Government received a communication from the Central Government intimating the State that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had approved the placement of service of the petitioner with the Government of India and requesting the State Government to release the petitioner with immediate effect to report to New Delhi by 10 AM on May 31, 2021.
8. The petitioner alleges that such decision was taken without the consent of the petitioner and/or 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. Thus, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends, such order was patently illegal and without jurisdiction.
9. The State Government conveyed its decision not to release the petitioner to the Central Government and issued a notification on May 31, 2021 (the date of superannuation of the petitioner) cancelling the earlier departmental notification dated May 25, 2021 by which the extension of service of the petitioner had been notified.
10. The Chief Minister of West Bengal, in her letter dated May 31, 2021 (annexed at running page 116 of the writ petition), stated inter alia that she, along with the petitioner (then Chief Secretary), had entered the meeting on May 28, 2021 at Kalaikunda Air Base and handed over a report personally to the Prime Minister, after which she “specifically and expressly sought permission” from the Prime Minister for both of them to leave for Digha, their next cyclone-ravaged destination, where a meeting was due and participants were waiting. The Chief Minister’s letter also alleged that the Prime Minister had “expressly permitted” them to take their leave.
11. On May 31, 2021 itself, the Central Government asked the State Government to release the petitioner for reporting to New Delhi on June 1, 2021, to which the State Government r
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer order violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equality before the law.
The administrative power of the Chairman under Section 25 of the 1985 Act to transfer cases is distinct from the decision-making powers on the judicial side, and the scope of judicial review of an ad....
The Chairman's administrative power to transfer cases under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunal Act supersedes the applicant's right to choose the filing location under Rule 6(2) of the 1987 Ru....
The Chairman of the CAT must consider the jurisdictional rights of employees and the administrative nature of transfer powers under the Central Administrative Act.
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 ....
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
Transfer orders made in the interest of administrative exigency are generally not subject to judicial interference unless proven to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Premature transfer of IAS officer before two-year tenure upheld based on prima facie material from departmental reports, without Civil Services Board or prior hearing, in administrative exigencies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
