NEW DELHI, Oct 29: A division bench of the Calcutta high court on Friday rejected the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order transferring the case of the former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandopadhyay from Kolkata bench to Delhi and held Central government’s intentions “mala fide” in pressurizing CAT to transfer the case.
The bench of justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rabindranath Samanta set aside the CAT’s order and said the modus operandi of the central government to get Bandopadhyay’s plea transferred to the principal bench of the CAT in Delhi reeks of mala fide. “The entire modus operandi adopted by the Union of India reeks of mala fides. It is unfortunate that the Principal Bench of the CAT nurtured such efforts by passing the impugned transfer order, thereby paying obeisance to the diktat of the Union of India, which has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and various high courts not to be a favoured litigant. Rather, the responsibility of meting out justice and serving the cause of justice is on a much higher pedestal for the Union of India than an ordinary individual litigant,” the bench said in its order.
Bandopadhyay, who refused to accept thee month’s extension in service and chose to retire on the appointed day of May 31 and was appointed the chief advisor to the chief minister Mamata Banerjee, moved CAT after the Centre’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) drew up proceedings against him for not attending a meeting called by the prime minister Narendra Modi for a review of the damages caused to the state by cyclone “Yaas.”
Within hours of the meeting where Bandopadhyay accompanying Mamata Banerjee walked out in a huff, the centre issued him an order asking him to report to Delhi on May 31, the last day he was originally scheduled to retire. After Mamata Banerjee refused to release him from the state government services, Bandopadhyay “retired” the same day and was promptly appointed as her chief advisor from June 1 for a three year term. But the centre since then has held up his all retirement benefits pending the approval of his actions. Bandopadhyay approached CAT, which is mandated to hear service matters relating to the Centre’s employees, after he was directed to appear before the DoPT for framing of charges. But on October 21, CAT transferred his plea from Kolkata to Delhi on the central government’s request and asked Bandopadhyay to appear before the tribunal in the national capital on October 22.
“Apart from the inexplicable hot haste of the Principal Bench (of CAT) to cater to the pseudo-urgency of the Union of India (the urgency, if any, is of the writ petitioner since the Inquiry Authority is bent upon concluding the inquiry prior to the disposal of O.A. 1619 of 2021). The Principal Bench, surprisingly, considered virtually the merits of the dispute between the parties in the O.A. by pre-judging that most of the evidence and witnesses would be from New Delhi, even before the matter was admitted. At the pre-admission stage, it was impossible for the Bench to judge (read, anticipate) the weightage to be given to forthcoming evidence and witnesses,” said the order passed by the two-judge bench.
“The alleged recalcitrance of the writ petitioner on May 28, 2021 took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kolkata Bench, the articles of charge against the petitioner were levelled in the teeth of the communication of the Chief Minister herself from Kolkata, which could also be a potentially important piece of evidence. Other eye-witnesses of the incident, if any, would be available in Kalaikunda in West Bengal, and not in New Delhi. No appropriate notice and/or hearing was given to the writ petitioner, as mandated under Section 25 of the 1985 Act, since the transfer was not in suo motu exercise of power by the Tribunal but on the application of the Union of India,” said Friday’s order since the Centre’s counsel challenged the high court’s jurisdiction in this case saying the matter had been transferred to the CAT’s tribunal in Delhi.
During a hearing on his petition at the high court on Wednesday, Bandopadhyay’s lawyer Shyam Devan told the bench that his client could not attend the PM’s meeting as he was accompanying the chief minister on May 28 and was involved in official duty. Devan also told the court that Bandopadhyay’s petition should be heard by CAT’s Kolkata tribunal as he worked in Bengal till retirement and still works in the state.
Appearing for the Centre, additional solicitor general Vikramjit Banerjee told the bench on Wednesday that the Calcutta high court did not have the jurisdiction to hear Bandopadhyay’s petition since the CAT has moved the case to Delhi since documents relating to the departmental proceedings were in the national Capital.
(Manas Dasgupta)