Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, Jyoti Singh, JJ.
Alapan Bandyopadhyay - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 1028 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2892 of 2022
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Transfer Petition - Administrative Tribunal - Section 25 of the 1985 Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - The court discussed the administrative power of the Chairman under Section 25 of the 1985 Act to transfer cases from one Bench to another. It highlighted the limited scope of judicial review of an administrative decision and the principles of legality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. The court found no infirmity in the exercise of the administrative power and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired IAS officer, filed a writ petition challenging the transfer of his original application from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the transfer order violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory right to file the application before the Kolkata Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was passed within the administrative powers conferred by Section 25 of the 1985 Act. It held that the petitioner was duly represented and heard before the transfer order was passed. The court dismissed the writ petition and the pending application, clarifying that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, statutory right to file the application before the Kolkata Bench, and competence of the Central Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 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. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review of an administrative decision and the principles of legality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed along with the pending application, and the court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings.
JUDGMENT
D. N. Patel, CJ. - Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 22.10.2021, passed by the Central administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), Principal Bench in P.T. No. 215 of 2021. Petitioner also seeks a direction that Original application (O.a.) being O.a. No. 1619/2021 filed by the Petitioner be heard and disposed of by the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench.
2. Factual narrative is in a narrow compass and to the extent relevant to the controversy involved in the present petition is that Petitioner joined IaS in 1987 and was allocated the West Bengal Cadre. Petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2021 and at the time of his superannuation was working as the Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal.
3. On 26.05.2021, a cyclone named as 'YaaS' had hit parts of West Bengal and Odisha. On 31.05.2021, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Ministry of Home affairs to the Petitioner for abstaining himself from a crucial review meeting chaired by the Hon'ble Prime Minister on 28.05.2021, for assessing loss of life and property and damage to the infrastructure caused by the cyclonic storm. On 16.06.2021, a major penalty charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents herein, for not attending the aforesaid meeting on 28.05.2021, as well as for not apprising the Hon'ble Prime Minister about the hardships and sufferings faced by the people of West Bengal, amongst other allegations mentioned in the statement of articles of Charges and imputation of the alleged misconduct or misbehaviour.
4. Charge sheet was issued under Rule 8 of the all India Services (Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 6 of all India Services (DCRB) Rules. Petitioner replied to the charge sheet by filing his written statement. On 31.08.2021, orders were issued appointing the Inquiring authority and the Presenting Officer. Vide notice dated 27.09.2021, the Inquiring authority scheduled a Preliminary hearing for 18.10.2021.
5. On receipt of the hearing notice, Petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunal act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 1985 act'), being O.a. No. 1619/2021, challenging the charge sheet dated 16.02.2021 and the consequential orders thereto appointing the Inquiring authority, etc. The Original application (O.a.) was fixed on 22.10.2021, before the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. However, in the meantime, Respondents herein filed a Transfer Petition before the Tribunal, Principal Bench, under Section 25 of the 1985 act, seeking transfer of the O.a. filed by the Petitioner, from Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
6. Vide order dated 22.10.2021, the Tribunal, Principal Bench allowed the Transfer Petition and directed listing of the O.a. 1619/2021 for admission, on 27.10.2021. Order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P.C.T. No. 78/2021, before the Calcutta High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. On 27.10.2021, Notice was issued by the Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.a. No. 1619/2021. Notice was accepted on behalf of the Respondents and time was granted to file reply. The matter was adjourned to 12.11.2021. The Calcutta High Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2021, allowed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner and set aside the order of the Tribunal, Principal Bench, passed in the Transfer Petition.
8. Respondents herein, challenged the judgment dated 29.10.2021, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 18338/2021, primarily on the ground that the Calcutta High Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an order passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi. Vide judgment dated 06.01.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the SLP and set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Liberty was, however, granted to the Petitioner herein to assail the order passed by the Principal Bench in the Transfer Pe
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer order violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equality before the law.
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 Central Administrative Tribunal must act as a court of first instance, addressing factual inquiries rather than merely exercising judicial review powers.
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.
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
