Alapan Bandyopadhyay case: Supreme Court reserves judgment on Centre's challenge to Calcutta High Court ruling

The Central government on Monday vehemently argued against the observations made by Calcutta High Court about the manner in which the principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had favoured the Central government in its attempt to transfer a case filed by former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay from Kolkata Bench of CAT to New Delhi..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre, submitted before the Supreme Court that a constitutional court raking up the issue of "federal structure", while dealing with a case involving a challenge to a CAT order, should be avoided.Mehta submitted that the High court had made accusations against the CAT chairperson."The principal bench prejudged that most of relevant parties will be from New Delhi..Where does the federal structure come into picture? I understand the politicians saying this but a constitutional court? It's a service matter for one officer and the HC says it upsets the federal structure? These observations are covered with political colour that should have been avoided," Mehta submitted..Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Bandyopadhyay, submitted that the officer had not served in any other State or Union Territory. "The initiation is after my retirement. (I was) always a resident of Kolkata, continues to be a resident of Kolkata," Singhvi submitted. He also highlighted how Bandyopadhyay had lost his brother to COVID and also lost his mother."(He) lost his brother to Covid. Schedules to visit cyclone affected area with CM, scheduled to meet with PM. CM's order (was) that he had come with her. Same day order from Centre comes. He performs rites for his younger brother, coincidentally his mother also passes away," Singhvi said. A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar after hearing the two counsel, reserved its verdict in the matter..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..[Read Live Thread]