Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in transfer of cases under Administrative Tribunals Act: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) INSC 182

Date of the Judgment: January 06, 2022. Citation: (2022) INSC 182. Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding the jurisdiction of High Courts in reviewing orders of transfer of cases by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). This case clarifies which High Court has the power of judicial review when a case is transferred from one bench of the CAT to another. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice C.T. Ravikumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from disciplinary proceedings initiated against Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the then Chief Secretary of West Bengal. The charges stemmed from his alleged failure to attend a review meeting chaired by the Prime Minister of India on May 28, 2021, to assess the damage caused by Cyclone Yaas. Consequently, Mr. Bandyopadhyay was accused of not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and of conduct unbecoming of a public servant.

Mr. Bandyopadhyay filed Original Application No. 1619/2021 before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging these disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the Union of India filed Transfer Petition No. 215/2021, seeking to transfer the case from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi. The Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting at the Principal Bench, allowed this transfer, which led to the challenge before the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Alapan Bandyopadhyay, initially filed Original Application No. 1619/2021 before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Subsequently, the Union of India filed a Transfer Petition (P.T.No.215/2021) under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to transfer the case to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in New Delhi. The Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting at the Principal Bench, allowed the transfer. This order was then challenged by the respondent before the High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No.78/2021. The High Court set aside the order of transfer, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the following legal provisions:

• Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section grants the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal the power 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.”
• Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This rule specifies the place of filing applications. It states: “(1) 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.”
• Section 5(4)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section allows the Chairman to discharge functions of a member of any other bench. It states: “S.5. Composition of Tribunals and Benches thereof.- (1)…(2)…(3)…(4) 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;”
• Rule 4(5)(a) and (b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This rule allows multiple people to file a single application if they have a common interest. It states: “Rule 4. Procedure for filing applications. – 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].”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Union of India):

• The Union of India argued that the challenge against the order passed in P.T.No.215/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, was maintainable only before the High Court of Delhi. This is because the Principal Bench of the Tribunal falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.
• The appellant relied on the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, which established that the power of judicial superintendence over tribunals lies with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal falls.
• They also cited Section 5(7) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which specifies that the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal sits at New Delhi.
• The Union contended that the mere residence of the applicant in a certain place does not constitute a cause of action that confers jurisdiction on the Bench of the Tribunal located at that place, citing Union of India vs. A. Shainamol, IAS and Anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 962.
• The appellant argued that Rule 6 of the Procedure Rules should not be interpreted to override the Chairman’s power to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Act, citing JK Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 673.

Arguments by the Respondent (Alapan Bandyopadhyay):

• The respondent argued that the High Court of Calcutta was justified in entertaining WPCT No.78/2021 because the order of transfer passed in P.T.No.215/2021 fell within its power of judicial superintendence.
• The respondent contended that the power under Section 25 of the Act was not taken away by relying on Rule 6 of the Procedure Rules.
• The respondent relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which confers powers on High Courts in relation to territories where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
• The respondent cited 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 argument that the High Court has jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
• The respondent argued that the transfer order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

[TABLE] of Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

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 (for short ‘the Act’) 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:

Cases:

• L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 – This case was relied upon to establish that the power of judicial superintendence over tribunals lies with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal falls. The Supreme Court emphasized that all decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by 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 – This case was cited to support the contention that the mere residence of the applicant in a certain place does not constitute a cause of action that confers jurisdiction on the Bench of the Tribunal located at that place.
• JK Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 673 – This case was used to argue that a rule made under a statute cannot override the parent statute itself. The court noted that this was relevant to the correctness of the transfer order, not the jurisdictional issue.
• Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited vs. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 – This case was cited by the respondent to argue that the High Court has jurisdiction if part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits. The Supreme Court found this case inapplicable to the issue of jurisdiction over transfer orders.
• Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 329 – This case was also cited by the respondent regarding jurisdiction based on cause of action. The Supreme Court found this case inapplicable to the issue of jurisdiction over transfer orders.
• Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 647 – This case was cited by the respondent regarding jurisdiction based on cause of action. The Supreme Court found this case inapplicable to the issue of jurisdiction over transfer orders.
• Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1157) – This case was referred to regarding the need for judicial restraint when making remarks against subordinate judiciary.
• Bhavesh Motiani vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online Del 11541 – This case was cited to show that challenges to transfer orders passed by the Principal Bench of the CAT are filed in the High Court of Delhi.
• Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Mohammad Isa, (1963) 3 SCR 722: (AIR 1963 SC 1728) – This case was referred to regarding the need to adopt judicial restraint against using strong language and imputation of corrupt motives against lower judiciary.
• K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1031 – This case was referred to regarding the need to avoid using intemperate language and castigating strictures at the lower levels.
• Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar (1996) 4 JT (SC) 605: (1996 AIR SCW 2098) – This case was referred to regarding the need to correct errors by lower courts through a process of reasoning, rather than as a rebuke.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section was discussed in detail regarding the power of the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal to transfer cases from one Bench to another.
• Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This rule was discussed regarding the place of filing applications, particularly the cause of action and the jurisdiction of the benches.
• Section 5(7) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section was referred to in order to establish that the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal sits at New Delhi.
• Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India: This article was cited by the respondent regarding the jurisdiction of High Courts based on the cause of action. The Supreme Court found this inapplicable to the issue of jurisdiction over transfer orders.
• Section 5(4)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section was discussed regarding the power of the Chairman to discharge functions of a member of any other bench.
• Rule 4(5)(a) and (b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This rule was discussed regarding the permission to multiple people to file a single application if they have a common interest.

[TABLE] of Authorities and How They Were Considered:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261: The court heavily relied on this case, stating that it established that all decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls.
• Union of India vs. A. Shainamol, IAS and Anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 962: The court used this case to support the argument that the applicant’s residence does not determine the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
• JK Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 673: The court acknowledged this case but stated that it was relevant to the correctness of the transfer order, not the jurisdictional issue.
• 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 court found these cases inapplicable to the issue of jurisdiction over transfer orders.
• Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1157): The court referred to this case to emphasize the need for judicial restraint when making remarks against subordinate judiciary.
• Bhavesh Motiani vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online Del 11541: The court cited this case as an example of a challenge to a transfer order passed by the Principal Bench being filed in the High Court of Delhi.
• Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Mohammad Isa, (1963) 3 SCR 722: (AIR 1963 SC 1728): The court referred to this case regarding the need to adopt judicial restraint against using strong language and imputation of corrupt motives against lower judiciary.
• K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1031: The court referred to this case regarding the need to avoid using intemperate language and castigating strictures at the lower levels.
• Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar (1996) 4 JT (SC) 605: (1996 AIR SCW 2098): The court referred to this case regarding the need to correct errors by lower courts through a process of reasoning, rather than as a rebuke.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court at Calcutta lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the order of transfer passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in New Delhi. The court emphasized that the relevant jurisdiction for reviewing such orders lies with the High Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the bench that passed the order falls. In this case, the order was passed by the Principal Bench in New Delhi, which falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.

The Court observed that the High Court of Calcutta had correctly identified the order under challenge as one passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. However, it failed to confine its consideration to the question of its own territorial jurisdiction, instead delving into the merits of the case. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court at Calcutta should have first determined its jurisdiction before considering the merits of the transfer order. The court stated: “When once the High Court found the order impugned as one passed by the Principal Bench we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court should have confined its consideration firstly, to decide its own territorial jurisdiction for exercising the power of judicial review over the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Principal Bench in P.T.No.215/2021 in the correct perspective, without reference to the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action for filing O.A.No.1619/2021 before the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal…”

The Supreme Court further clarified that the cause of action for the original application before the Kolkata Bench was not relevant for determining the jurisdiction to review the transfer order. It stated: “In such circumstances, the question of infringement or otherwise of the right of the respondent herein to litigate before the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal could not have been gone into, on merits, without deciding the seminal question whether the High Court of Calcutta itself had jurisdiction to undertake judicial review of the order passed by the Chairman in exercise of power under Section 25 at the Principal seat of the Tribunal at New Delhi…”

The court also referred to its earlier decision in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, emphasizing that all decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The court stated: “The expression “all decisions of these Tribunals” used by the Constitution Bench will cover and take within its sweep orders passed on applications or otherwise in the matter of transfer of Original Applications from one Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench of the Tribunal in exercise of the power under Section 25 of the Act.”

The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court of Calcutta had made certain remarks against the Chairman of the Tribunal, which were not necessary for deciding the jurisdictional issue. The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint and cautioned against making disparaging remarks against lower judiciary. The Court quoted from several of its earlier judgments to emphasize this point, including Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1157), Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Mohammad Isa, (1963) 3 SCR 722: (AIR 1963 SC 1728), K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1031, and Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar (1996) 4 JT (SC) 605: (1996 AIR SCW 2098).

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court of Calcutta, holding that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the transfer order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in New Delhi. The court clarified that the relevant High Court for judicial review of such transfer orders is the one within whose jurisdiction the bench that passed the order is located.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPCT No.78/2021. The Court clarified that the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the order of transfer passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in New Delhi. The Court emphasized that the cause of action for the original application before the Kolkata Bench is not relevant for determining the jurisdiction to review the transfer order.

Key Findings

The Supreme Court’s key findings in this case are:

• The High Court that has jurisdiction to review an order of transfer of a case by the Central Administrative Tribunal is the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the bench that passed the transfer order is located.
• The cause of action for the original application before a particular bench of the Tribunal does not determine the jurisdiction of the High Court to review the transfer order.
• The power of judicial superintendence over tribunals lies with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal falls, as established in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
• High Courts should exercise judicial restraint and avoid making disparaging remarks against subordinate judiciary.

Flowchart of the Case

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the case can be summarized as follows: