Alapan Bandyopadhyay Case : Calcutta HC's Observations Coloured With 'Political Overtones', Says Centre; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

The Supreme Court on Monday reserved judgment on the special leave petition by Centre challenging Calcutta High Court's order of setting aside the order passed by the CAT Principal bench to transfer former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay's petition from Kolkata bench to New Delhi.A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar reserved the judgment after hearing Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Central Governemnt and Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Bandyopadhyay.The Solicitor General assured the bench that no precipitative action will be taken against Bandyopadhyay till the Court delivers the judgment.Alapan Bandyopadhyay had created headlines in May, following his refusal to attend a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister in Kolkata in the wake of cyclone disaster. Soon after that, the Central Government recalled him to the Delhi. Before that order taking effect, the civil servant tendered his resignation. Later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which he challenged before the Kolkata Bench of the CAT. The CAT Principal Bench passed an order in Centre's application to transfer Bandyopadhyay's application from Kolkata to New Delhi. The transfer order was set aside by the Calcutta High Court. While passing the judgment, the High Court made certain adverse remarks against the Union Government and the CAT Principal Bench.The Centre's submissions before the Supreme Court were two-fold : (i) HC lacked territorial jurisdiction; (ii) HC's adverse comments were unwarranted.Calcutta HC lacks territorial jurisdiction, argues Solicitor GeneralThe Solicitor General submitted that the Calcutta High Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to set aside the order of transfer passed by the CAT Chairperson located in New Delhi. The SG replied that this issue could be raised only by the Delhi High Court, which has jurisdiction over CAT Principal Bench, and not the Calcutta High Court."The Calcutta High Court has no jurisdiction over the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Delhi", the SG said. Referring to the decision L Chandrakumar vs Union of India, the SG submitted that it is is territorial High Court which can exercise jurisdiction over a Tribunal. The High Court committed error by entertaining the matter on the broader concept of cause of action by saying that underlying dispute arose in Kolkata. The concept of "part of cause of action" cannot be invoked while dealing with the challenge against an order passed by a Tribunal.The Solicitor General submitted that this has a question of serious ramifications, as "disgruntled officers", after retirement, can get cases filed in far away jurisdictions only to trouble the Union by creating artificial cause of action. SG takes objection to adverse remarks made by the High CourtThe Solicitor General also took objection to the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the Union of India and the CAT Chairperson."Your Lordships have always said that the High Court in its observations needs to be sober and circumspect. Personal opinions and political views do not have any place while exercising judicial functions.With due respect to the office of the constitutional court, this was not expected", the SG submitted.The SG said that he was taking serious exceptions to the observations of the High Court such as the Union's modus operandi "reeks of mala fides" and the CAT Principal Bench was "overzealous" to cater to the fiat of the government and paid "obeisance to the diktat of the Union of India"."Diktat of Union of India? We moved an application in accordance with rules and the Chairman invoked the statutory power. Is the High Court accusing the Chairman, who is a former High Court Chief Justice", the SG submitted.The SG also expressed surprise at the High Court's observations regarding violation of federal structure. "Where does federal structure come into picture?It is a service matter where the Chairman just transfers the matter from one bench to another. He hasn't touched upon the merits and is only deciding transfer. These are observations coloured with certain political overtones. These should have been avoided", he added.Response of BandyopadhaySenior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Bandyopadhyay, conveyed to the bench that the adverse remarks could be expunged."Your lordship can rectify the observations without hurting anyone", Singhvi submitted at the outset. On the question of territorial jurisdiction, Singhvi submitted that Bandyopadhyay was a person who was always a resident of Kolkata and belonged to West Bengal cadre in IAS and was posted there throughout his service. After retirement also, he is residing at Kolkata. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after his retirement.Singhvi referred to Rule 6(2) of the CAT(Procedure) Rules and Section 15 of the...

Alapan Bandyopadhyay Case : Calcutta HC's Observations Coloured With 'Political Overtones', Says Centre; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shruti Kakkar

Alapan Bandyopadhyay Case : Calcutta HC's Observations Coloured With 'Political Overtones', Says Centre; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers