The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside an October 1, 2021 order of the Calcutta High Court which set aside a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Delhi relating to a case filed by former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandopadhyay and held that the HC The comment was “totally”. Unnecessary”.
A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar said the High Court order, which quashed the tribunal’s order to transfer the case from Kolkata to Delhi, was “passed without jurisdiction” and “now void from the outset”. (legally void from the beginning)”.
It also rejected certain statements made by the High Court against the tribunal and said that these were “unnecessary, unwarranted and warranted a sharp reaction to the baseless assumptions”.
The Central Administrative Tribunal adjudicates disputes and complaints relating to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the public services.
The top court’s order came on a plea by the central government, which in its October 29 judgment also flagged certain observations of the high court.
The issue pertains to disciplinary proceedings against Bandopadhyay for skipping a cyclone review meeting chaired by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi On May 28, 2021 in Medinipur district of West Bengal.
He was issued a show cause notice and directed to report before the Center on May 31, the day of his retirement. Bandopadhyay had challenged the disciplinary proceedings against him in the Kolkata High Court.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court bench held that the Calcutta High Court has no power to set aside the order of the tribunal. “It is clear that the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, which passed the order” transferring the matter from Kolkata to Delhi, “falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi”, the top court said.
“Needless to say that the judicial review of the power of judicial review of an order to transfer an original application pending before a Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench can be done only by a Division Bench of the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. The bench in the field is passing it, falls”, it added.
“In the present case, the High Court at Calcutta has acquired jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition … challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi … even after taking note of the fact that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal does not lie within its territorial jurisdiction”, the Supreme Court said.
On the remarks of the High Court, criticizing the tribunal’s order to transfer the matter, the bench observed that there was “no extraordinary ground” for making “reprehensible and derogatory remarks and remarks”.
To exercise restraint, we state that the remarks made by the High Court were unwarranted, unwarranted and warranted a sharp reaction to the baseless assumptions. Ergo, we have no hesitation to believe that they were completely unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the correctness or otherwise of the transfer order. Hence they deserve to be expelled. We do this,” the SC bench said.
,