Former WB chief secy challenges transfer of CAT proceedings, HC reserves order

Former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay Friday challenged before the Delhi High Court the transfer of his application concerning the proceedings against him from Kolkata to New Delhi by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), saying it was against the principles of natural justice as he was not given an opportunity to be heard.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh heard the counsel for Bandyopadhyay and the Centre and reserved its judgement on the petition.

The court granted liberty to the parties to file a short written submission by Saturday.

Bandyopadhyay had moved the Kolkata bench of CAT to challenge the proceedings initiated against him in a matter related to not attending a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss the effects of cyclone 'Yaas' at the Kalaikunda Air Force Station on May 28 last year.

The proceedings were initiated by the Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance and Pensions.

Advocate Kartikey Bhatt, appearing for Bandyopadhyay, argued that the transfer order was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play as he was not even granted a right to file his written objections and the Centre's plea was allowed on the very first day of its listing.

He argued that convenience of the officer has to be considered while issung the order and the petitioner ordinarily and permanently resides in Kolkata and the entire cause of action occurred within the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Bench of CAT.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said till the time proceedings are virtual, it does not matter it happens in Kolkata or Delhi and the court can record his request or joint request that the hearing shall be held virtual before the CAT.

The law officer referred to Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which related to the power of Chairman to transfer cases and said, “Please see the width of powers. Notice is not even relevant. These are very wide powers akin to the master of roaster power.”

Section 25 of the Act states, “on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard, or on his own motion, without such notice, the Chairman may transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench”.

Mehta added that no judicial interference was warranted in this case.

Bandyopadhyay, who was not released by the state government, chose to retire on May 31, 2021, his original date of superannuation before having been given an extension of three months from that date.

The Union government had filed a transfer petition before the principal bench of CAT, which on October 22 last year allowed the transfer of Bandyopadhyay's application to itself in New Delhi.

On January 6, the Supreme Court had set aside a Calcutta High Court order which quashed the CAT transfer order and granted Bandyopadhyay the liberty to assail the same before the jurisdictional high court.

The apex court had delivered its verdict on a plea filed by the Centre challenging the October 29, 2021 order of the Calcutta high court.

In the present petition, Bandyopadhyay has claimed that the Centre sought transfer on the ground that the department is based in New Delhi but the "situs" of the office of the Union of India or its convenience can never be a valid ground to transfer an original application and the convenience of a retired officer ought to have been given precedence.

Check out latest DH videos here