Order of Tribunal which is passed under Sec.25 of Administrative Tribunals Act, can be subjected to scrutiny only before Division Bench of High Court within whose jurisdiction concerned Tribunal falls: SC

Read Judgment: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, January 7, 2022: The Supreme Court has opined that the power of judicial review of an order transferring an Original Application pending before a Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to another Bench u/s 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, can be judicially reviewed only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same, falls. 

A Division Bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar therefore observed that the High Court at Calcutta has usurped jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the order passed by the CAT, New Delhi, even after taking note of the fact that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal does not lie within its territorial jurisdiction. 

Going by the background of the case, Alapan Bandyopadhyay (Respondent), who was the then Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal, filed an application before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him alleging failure to attend a review meeting chaired by the Prime Minister of India for assessing the loss of life, damage to property and infrastructure caused by the cyclonic storm ‘YAAS’. He was charged thereunder for failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and for exhibiting conduct unbecoming of a public servant. 

Pending consideration of the application, the Union of India (Appellant) moved a Transfer Petition u/s 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi seeking its transfer from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench. That petition was allowed by the Chairman of the Tribunal. The High Court however, set aside the order passed by CAT Principal Bench (New Delhi) transferring the application filed by the respondent. 

After considering the provisions and the submissions, the Apex Court noted that as per Section 25 of the Act, a party to any Application before any Bench of the CAT is statutorily entitled to make a separate application before the Chairman of the CAT for such a transfer. 

Upon transfer of an Original Application pending before a particular Bench of the Tribunal, lying within the territorial jurisdiction and power of judicial superintendence of any particular High Court other than High Court of Delhi at Delhi, to the Principal Bench at New Delhi lying within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi, the question of maintainability may arise in case of a challenge against the order of transfer, added the Court. 

The Top Court elaborated that yet another High Court may emerge in the picture if the Chairman, sitting at the Principal Bench transferred the O.A. not to the file of the Principal Bench, but to another Bench lying within the territorial jurisdiction of yet another High Court. 

However, the Chairman of the Tribunal can also pass an order of transfer of an Original Application while sitting at any other Bench than the Principal Bench, and this possibility cannot be ruled out in view of the provisions u/s 5(4)(a) of the Act, added the Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Ravikumar observed that once the High Court found the order impugned as one passed by the Principal Bench, then it should have confined its consideration firstly, to decide its own territorial jurisdiction for exercising the power of judicial review over the order passed by the Principal Bench in the correct perspective, without reference to the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action for filing application before the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal founded on the cause of action referred to in Rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, that decides the place of filing of an O.A. 

Hence, the Apex Court set aside the final order passed by the High Court at Calcutta to be held as one passed without jurisdiction, and hence, ab initio void.