Bandyopadhyay was serving as the Chief Secretary when the Centre in May 2021 decided to cut short his tenure with the West Bengal government, and asked him to report to New Delhi, after which he superannuated on May 31.

Subsequently, an inquiry was initiated against him by the Centre. Bandyopadhyay had then moved the CAT's Kolkata Bench challenging the decision to start the inquiry. This led to the transfer petition by the Centre before the Principal Bench.

On October 22, the CAT passed an order allowing the transfer petition and directing the registry office to intimate the order to the Kolkata Bench of the CAT. Bandyopadhyay then moved the High Court contending that the transfer order was in violation of Rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

The High Court had then passed a scathing order in which a Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rabindranath Samanta said that the modus operandi of Central government to get the case transferred to the principal bench of CAT at New Delhi reeked of mala fides.

It was unfortunate that the principal bench nurtured such efforts by allowing Centre's transfer petition, the High Court had said.

"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," the High Court judgment said.

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 Court had added.

It had, therefore, set aside the transfer order and asked the Kolkata Bench of CAT to decide Bandyopadhyay's case expeditiously.

High Voltage Drama in Supreme Court: “CJI master of roster”, reaffirms Constitution Bench

Murali Krishnan

Related Stories