The former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay suffered a legal setback after the Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment in his favour where the High Court had quashed a ruling of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Delhi related to a case against him. The bench of justices A M Khanwilkar and C T Ravikumar of the Supreme Court that passed the order on Thursday (December 6) also expunged certain observations made by the Calcutta High Court against Central Administrative Tribunal and the union govt.
Alapan Bandyopadhyay had been issued a show-cause notice for abstaining from the cyclone review meeting on May 28 chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Kalaikunda. On May 31 when Bandyopadhyay was set to retire, the Centre recalled him and asked him to go to Delhi and join the central government’s service. Bandopadhyay retired on the same day and did not go to Delhi.
As Bandyopadhyay refused to follow the order, the Personnel Department of the central government started disciplinary proceedings against him which he had challenged at the Calcutta Bench of CAT. But his case was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal in Delhi following the request of the Centre. Bandopadhyay approached Calcutta High Court against transfer of his case from Kolkata to Delhi and got a favourable order.
The division bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Rabindranath Samanta of the Calcutta High Court passed the order on October 29 to quash the transfer of the case.
“The entire modus operandi adopted by the Union of India reeks of mala fides, 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 Union of India,” division bench had said.
The central government had flagged some of the comments by the High Court in its ruling and moved to the Supreme Court.
Calcutta High Court passed order without jurisdiction, it was ‘ab initio void:” SC
The Supreme Court has said that the Calcutta High Court passed the order without jurisdiction and it was ‘ab initio void (legally void from inception)’.
“It is crystal clear that the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, which passed the order of transferring the matter from Kolkata to Delhi falls within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi”, the Supreme Court has said.
The Supreme Court further said that Calcutta High Court usurped jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition of Bandopadhyay “even after taking note of the fact that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal does not lie within its territorial jurisdiction.”
The Supreme Court expunged statements of the High Court against the tribunal terming these as unwarranted, uncalled for, and avoidable as these were made on unfounded assumptions.
It said that there was “no exceptional ground to make scathing and disparaging remarks and observations,” against the tribunal “hence, they are liable to be expunged. We do so,” the SC bench said.
