Alapan Bandhopadhyay v. Union of India and another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Section 19 and 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• *Alapan Bandhopadhyay Vs Union of India & another* *Date- 7th March 2022* *Forum- Delhi High Court* *Sub- Whether chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) has unbridled power to transfer a matter from one bench of tribunal to another bench and connected issues?* The Delhi High court Chief Justice bench in this high profile matter was hearing a petition when a show cause was issued to the petitioner herein by *Ministry of Home Affairs for not attending a meeting chaired by PM Narendra Modiji on 28-05-21 **for assessing loss and damage caused by Yass Cyclone in Calcutta. The show cause was followed by a charge sheet which was challenged before the Calcutta Bench of CAT. In the meantime, the matter was transferred by the Chairman CAT to New Delhi and said transfer was challenged before Supreme Court and the apex court declined to interfere though leave was granted to challenge…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 25th February, 2022 Pronounced on: 7th March , 2022 + W.P.(C) 1028/2022 & CM APPL.2892/2022 (stay) ALAPAN BANDYOPADHYAY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Karthikey Bhatt, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Tu shar Mehta, Solicitor General along with Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Taha Yasin and M s. Srirupa Nag Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGMENT : Per D. N. PATEL, Chief Justice 1. 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

4. Charge sheet was issued under Rule 8 of the All India Service s (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 6 of All India Service s (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.

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 Calcut ta 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 adjo urned 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 ju dgment 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 Petition, before the Jurisdictional High Court. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has approached this Court , filing the present writ petition.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Tran sfer Order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the Transfer Petition was listed for the first time on 22.10.2021 and despite requests made on behalf of the Petitioner, no opportunity was granted to file objections/reply to t he petition or produce the relevant judgments. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay , Civil Appeal No.197/2022, arising out of SLP(C) No.18338/2021 and of this Court in State of G ujarat vs. R.S. Yadav & Anr., 2002 SCC Online Del 198. 10. It was further contended that the power under Section 25 of the 1985 Act was exercised in violation of principles governing the provisions of the Section itself.

The grounds of transfer raised by the R espondents herein, as evident from the Transfer Petition, were that the concerned Department of Union of India is located at New Delhi, the officers who are to defend the matter are also posted at New Delhi, the charge -sheet was issued from New Delhi and the Departmental Inquiry is being held at New Delhi. Thus, it was urged that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. It was contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that none of these grounds cou ld be va lid grounds in the eyes of law for transferring the original application to New Delhi.

18. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Solicitor General of India as well as the Additional Solicitor General and examined their rival contentions. 19. In so far as the contention of the Petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the Petitioner when the Transfer Petition was heard, is concerned, the same is devoid of merit . Perusal of the impugned order clearly reflects that the Petitioner was duly represented by a team of counsels including a senior counsel who had, as recorded in the order, ‘vociferously argued’ and objected to the transferring of the O.A. The contentions of the Petitioner have also been recorded in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned order.

and the Inquiry Officer after being appointed at Delhi , was conducting the Inquiry proceedings at Delhi. Thus, the cause of action has arisen at New Delhi and no error can be found with the impugned order. 21. Learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that under Rule 6(2) of the 1987 Rules, it is the statutory right and option of the Petitioner, being a retired person, to file an O.A. before the Kolkata Bench, as he was ordinarily residing in West Bengal at the time of filing the O.A. No doubt, Rule 6(2) gives an option to the applicant who has ceased to be in service, to file an application before a Bench , within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

Importantly, the charge -sheet was issued in Delhi and the inquiry is also being held at Delhi. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen at New Delhi. Further, in times of the on -going Pand emic, it is convenient to defend the matter at Delhi as the records are maintained at the offices at Delhi. 14. It was further argued that it is wrong for the Petitioner to contend that principles of natural justice were violated. Advance service of the Tran sfer Petition was done on the Petitioner. Hearing was through video conferencing mode in which the Petitioner was duly represented by a team of counsels, who advanced detailed submissions, both in facts and law and have been recorded in the impugned order.

This is explicit from a plain reading of sub -Rule (2) of Rule 6 and needs no elaboration or interpretation. However, the question that arises is whether this right of an applicant can control or regulate the administrative powers of a Chairman under Section 25 of the 1985 Act. In our opinion, the answer can only be in the negative. 22. As rightly argued by Mr. Mehta, the power of a Chairman of the Tribunal under Section 25 of the 1985 Act is purely an administrative power to transfer cases from one Bench to another, which can be exercised on an application by any party or even on his own motion in a given case and where the facts and circumstances so warrant.

As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (supra), the Chairman of a Tribunal is an entity dis tinct from the Tribunal and the administrative powers to transfer a matter are different and separate from the decision making powers on the judicial side. Therefore, it may not be wrong to hold that the administrative powers are akin to the power of the M aster of

Roster, who alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate cases. 23. The contention that the right of an applicant under Rule 6(2) will control or override the power of the Chairman under Section 25, in our view, is wholly misconceived. If this proposition is to be accepted, it would result in a situation where in no case, an O.A. filed by an applicant , who has ceased to be in service, invoking Rule 6(2) at a place of his choice, would be open to transfer to another Bench , by the C hairman. This would make Section 25 redundant and subservient to Rule 6(2), which could not have been the intent of the Legislature while enacting Section 25 of the 1985 Act.

The wide powers conferred on the Chairman to transfer a matter can be clearly understood from the provisions of the Section whereby the Chairman has been conferred the power to transfer a matter from one Bench to another, on his own motion, without any application from any party. Being a purely administrative function, in our view, it is neither regulated nor controlled by the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the 1987 Rules. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that w hile the Petitioner has the option to approach the Bench at a place where he was ordinarily residing at the time of filing the a pplication, however, the Chairman of the Tribunal has the administrative powers to transfer the matter to another Bench, albeit for sound reasons and after notice to and hearing the parties to the lis.

delineating th e s cope of judicial interference and relevant paras from the judgment are as under :- “77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision -making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or partic ular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administra tive action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision -maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision - making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety.

Operative decision and relief

passed. The order records the contentions of both the parties and has recorded reasons for transferring the petition from the Kolkata to the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal. This Court f inds no infirmity in the exercise of the administrative power , either on the procedural aspects or on the merits. Being purely an administrative power of the Chairman, it is not for this Court to substitute its decision or wisdom for that of the Chairman a s n o illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity has been found in the decision making process. 26. In so far as the arguments of the Petitioner with respect to the competence of the Central Government to issue the charge -sheet and/or initiate disciplinary procee dings against the Petitioner, are concerned, this Court is not adjudicating on the said issue as it is not the subject matter of the Transfer Petition. The issue will be decided as and when the O.A. is decided by the Tribunal. 27. For all the aforesaid reason s, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 28. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application. 29. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the disciplinary proceeding s, including the competence of the Central Government to issue the charge-sheet.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Alapan Bandhopadhyay v. Union of India and another concerns *alapan bandhopadhyay vs union of india & another* *date- 7th march 2022* *forum- delhi high court* *sub- whether chairman of central administrative tribunal(cat) has unbridled power to transfer a matter from one bench of tribunal to another bench and connected issues?* the delhi high court chief justice bench in this high profile matter was hearing a petition when a show cause was issued to the petitioner herein by *ministry of home affairs for not attending a meeting chaired by pm narendra modiji on 28-05-21 **for assessing loss and damage caused by yass cyclone in calcutta. the show cause was followed by a charge sheet which was challenged before the calcutta bench of cat. in the meantime, the matter was transferred by the chairman cat to new delhi and said transfer was challenged before supreme court and the apex court declined to interfere though leave was granted to challenge… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 1028/2022 & CM APPL. 2892/2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: *Alapan Bandhopadhyay Vs Union of India & another* *Date- 7th March 2022* *Forum- Delhi High Court* *Sub- Whether chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) has unbridled power to transfer a matter from one bench of tribunal to another bench and connected issues?* The Delhi High court Chief Justice bench in this high profile matter was hearing a petition when a show cause was issued to the petitioner herein by *Ministry of Home Affairs for not attending a meeting chaired by PM Narendra Modiji on 28-05-21 **for assessing loss and damage caused by Yass Cyclone in Calcutta. The show cause was followed by a charge sheet which was challenged before the Calcutta Bench of CAT. In the meantime, the matter was transferred by the Chairman CAT to New Delhi and said transfer was challenged before Supreme Court and the apex court declined to interfere though leave was granted to challenge… Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—Section 19 and 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of Section 19 and 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 and the decision date 2022-03-07; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Alapan Bandhopadhyay v. Union of India and another, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 1028/2022 & CM APPL. 2892/2022, and the decision is dated 2022-03-07. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Section 19 and 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• Section 19 and 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR — Court / Tribunal to be verified · Quashed / set aside
• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• Lokmangal Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit Vs PCIT -4 Pune — ITAT Pune · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Appeals, Revision, Rectification & Procedure

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY