Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction for Challenging Tribunal Transfer Orders: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 06 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 21
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J. (authored the judgment)

When a case is transferred from one bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to another, which High Court has the power to review that transfer order? The Supreme Court addressed this important question in a case involving a transfer of proceedings from Kolkata to New Delhi. This judgment clarifies the jurisdictional issues that arise when the Chairman of the CAT transfers a case from one bench to another, especially when those benches fall under the purview of different High Courts. The core issue revolves around whether the High Court that has jurisdiction over the original bench or the High Court that has jurisdiction over the bench to which the case is transferred has the power of judicial review over the transfer order.

Case Background

This case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the then Chief Secretary of West Bengal. The proceedings were initiated because of his alleged failure to attend a review meeting chaired by the Prime Minister of India on 28 May 2021, regarding the impact of Cyclone Yaas.

Mr. Bandyopadhyay filed an Original Application (O.A.No.1619/2021) before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the charge memo dated 16 June 2021. Subsequently, the Union of India filed a Transfer Petition (P.T.No.215/2021) before the Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi, seeking to transfer the case from Kolkata to New Delhi. The Chairman of the CAT, sitting at the Principal Bench, allowed the transfer. Mr. Bandyopadhyay then challenged this transfer order before the High Court at Calcutta, which set aside the transfer order. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Mr. Bandyopadhyay, initially filed O.A.No.1619/2021 before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The Union of India then sought a transfer of the case to the Principal Bench of CAT in New Delhi. The Chairman of CAT, sitting at the Principal Bench, allowed the transfer. Subsequently, Mr. Bandyopadhyay challenged this transfer order before the High Court at Calcutta, which set aside the transfer order. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal provisions:

• Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section empowers the Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal to transfer cases from one bench to another. The section 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.”
• Section 5(4)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section allows the Chairman to discharge the functions of a Judicial or Administrative Member of any other Bench, in addition to their own. The section states:
  
  “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), the Chairman – (a) may, in addition to discharging the functions of the Judicial Member or the Administrative Member of the Bench to which he is appointed, discharge the functions of the Judicial Member or, as the case may be the Administrative Member, of any other Bench;”
• Section 5(7) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section specifies that the benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal shall ordinarily sit at New Delhi (which shall be known as the Principal Bench), Allahabad, Kolkata, Madras, New Bombay, and at such other places as the Central Government may specify.
• Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This rule outlines where applications should be filed, generally based on where the applicant is posted or where the cause of action arose. The rule states:
  
  “An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction – (i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen; Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.”
• Rule 4(5)(a) and (b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This rule allows multiple persons to join together in a single application if they have a common interest in the matter, or for an association to represent such persons.
  
  “4(5) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) to (3) the Tribunal may permit more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause and the nature of relief prayed for that they have a common interest in the matter. 4(5) (b) Such permission may also be granted to an Association representing the persons desirous of joining in a single application provided, however, that the application shall disclose the class/grade/categories or persons on whose behalf it has been filed [provided that at least one affected person joins such an application].”
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article confers powers on High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Article 226(2) states that the High Court can exercise its power in relation to territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
• Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India: These articles provide for the establishment of administrative tribunals.

Arguments

Appellant (Union of India) Arguments:

• The challenge against the transfer order passed in P.T.No.215/2021 by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at New Delhi is only maintainable before the High Court of Delhi, as the Principal Bench falls under its territorial jurisdiction.
• The power of judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and Tribunals within the respective jurisdictions is part of the basic structure of the constitution, as per the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261].
• Decisions of Tribunals are subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls, as per the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261].
• The mere residence of the applicant in a certain place does not amount to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction upon the Bench of the Tribunal located at that place, as per the judgment in Union of India vs. A. Shainamol, IAS and Anr. [(2021) SCC Online SC 962].
• Rule 6 of the Procedural Rules should not be interpreted in a way that takes away the Chairman’s jurisdiction to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Act, as a rule made under a statute cannot override the parent statute itself, as per the judgment in JK Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2007) 13 SCC 673].

Respondent (Alapan Bandyopadhyay) Arguments:

• The High Court at Calcutta was justified in entertaining WPCT No.78/2021, as the order of transfer passed in P.T.No.215/2021 fell within its power of judicial superintendence.
• The power under Section 25 of the Act was not taken away solely because Rule 6 of the Procedure Rules was relied on to upturn the order in P.T.No.215/2021.
• The High Court had rightly exercised the power of judicial review and looked into the correctness of the order of transfer passed by the Chairman of the Tribunal (the Principal Bench of the Tribunal) in the invocation of the power under Section 25 of the Act.
• Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India confers powers on High Courts in relation to territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
• Reliance was placed on the judgments in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2004) 6 SCC 254], Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2014) 9 SCC 329] and Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 647] to support the contention that the High Court at Calcutta had jurisdiction.
• The transfer order was illegal, arbitrary, passed in violation of the principals of natural justice, and based on irrelevant considerations.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the bundle of facts that constitute the cause of action for filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and determinative of the place of its filing, would remain as the decisive factor in case such an application is subsequently transferred from the Bench where it was filed to another Bench of the Tribunal falling under the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court, to ascertain the jurisdictional High Court to exercise the power of judicial review qua the order of transfer passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court at Calcutta did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at New Delhi. The Court emphasized that the power of judicial review over an order passed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, lies with the High Court within whose jurisdiction the bench that passed the order falls. In this case, the transfer order was passed by the Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi, which falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.

The Court also expunged certain disparaging remarks made by the High Court against the Chairman of the Tribunal, stating that they were unwarranted and avoidable.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court, if so advised. The Court clarified that it had not made any observations on the correctness of the transfer order itself.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court considered the authorities to come to its reasoning. Here is a summary of how each authority was viewed by the Court:

• L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261]: The Supreme Court relied on this judgment to emphasize that the power of judicial superintendence over tribunals lies with the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls. The court held that all decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.
• Union of India vs. A. Shainamol, IAS and Anr. [(2021) SCC Online SC 962]: The Supreme Court relied on this judgment to emphasize that the mere residence of the applicant in a certain place would not amount to cause of action conferring jurisdiction upon the Bench of the Tribunal located at that place.
• JK Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2007) 13 SCC 673]: The Supreme Court relied on this judgment to emphasize that a rule made under a statute cannot override or supersede a provision of the parent statute itself.
• Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2004) 6 SCC 254], Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2014) 9 SCC 329] and Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 647]: The Supreme Court distinguished these cases, stating that they dealt with the cause of action for filing a writ petition, whereas the present case dealt with the jurisdiction for reviewing a transfer order.
• Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1157): The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize the need for judicial restraint when making remarks against subordinate judiciary. The court expunged the disparaging remarks made by the High Court.
• Bhavesh Motiani vs. Union of India [2019 SCC Online Del 11541]: The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that a writ petition against an order of transfer passed under Section 25 of the Act by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi should be filed before the High Court of Delhi.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain a clear and consistent approach to jurisdictional issues concerning the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Court emphasized the following:

• Clarity in Jurisdictional Matters: The Court sought to avoid conflicting decisions by different High Courts when a transfer order under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is challenged.
• Adherence to Constitutional Principles: The Court relied on the principle established in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], that all decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.
• Distinction between Original Cause of Action and Transfer Order Cause of Action: The Court differentiated between the cause of action for the original application and the cause of action for challenging the transfer order. The Court held that the cause of action for challenging the transfer order arises at the place where the transfer order was passed, i.e., the Principal Bench in New Delhi.
• Avoiding Multiplicity of Litigation: The Court sought to prevent a situation where multiple parties residing within the jurisdiction of different High Courts could challenge the same transfer order, leading to confusion and conflicting decisions.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The High Court that has jurisdiction over the bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that passed the transfer order has the power to review that order.
• The cause of action for challenging a transfer order is distinct from the cause of action for the original application.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the need to avoid conflicting decisions by different High Courts in matters related to CAT transfer orders.
• The Supreme Court expunged certain disparaging remarks made by the High Court against the Chairman of the Tribunal.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta and dismissed the writ petition. The respondent was granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court (High Court of Delhi) if so advised.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdictional High Court for challenging a transfer order passed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the bench of the Tribunal that passed the order falls. This clarifies the position of law established in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261].

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the power of judicial review of an order transferring an Original Application pending before a Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench under Section 25 of the Act can be judicially reviewed only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same falls.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay clarifies the jurisdictional issues related to the transfer of cases within the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court held that the High Court of Delhi, not the High Court of Calcutta, has the power to review the transfer order passed by the Principal Bench of the CAT in New Delhi. This decision ensures clarity and consistency in handling challenges to transfer orders, preventing conflicting decisions by different High Courts. The judgment also underscores the importance of judicial restraint and adherence to constitutional principles.

Category

• Administrative Law
  • Central Administrative Tribunal
• Service Law
  • Transfer of Cases
• Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
  • Section 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
• Constitution of India
  • Article 226, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case of Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay?

A: The main issue was to determine which High Court has the jurisdiction to review a transfer order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) when a case is transferred from one bench to another.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the jurisdiction of High Courts in such cases?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the High Court that has jurisdiction over the bench of the CAT that passed the transfer order has the power to review that order. In this case, it was the High Court of Delhi.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta because it held that the High Court at Calcutta did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the transfer order passed by the Principal Bench of the CAT in New Delhi.

Q: What is the significance of Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in this case?

A: Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, empowers the Chairman of the CAT to transfer cases from one bench to another. The Supreme Court’s judgment clarified which High Court has the power to review orders passed under this section.

Q: What should an individual do if their case is transferred from one bench of the CAT to another, and they want to challenge the transfer order?

A: According to this judgment, they should approach the High Court that has jurisdiction over the bench of the CAT that passed the transfer order.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases involving the transfer of proceedings within the CAT?

A: This judgment provides clarity on the jurisdictional aspects of challenging transfer orders within the CAT. It ensures that there is a consistent approach to such matters and prevents conflicting decisions by different High Courts.