[Alapan Bandyopadhyay] CAT Chairperson can transfer case from one bench to another without giving parties chance to file written reply: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the chairperson of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) can transfer a case from one bench to another without giving the parties a chance to file a formal written reply [Alapan Bandyopadhyay v Union of India and Ors]..A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has said that the power of the chairperson under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is purely administrative which can be exercised on application by any party or even on his own motion and all that is required is a notice to the parties and a hearing..“As rightly argued by Mr. (Tushar) Mehta, the power of a Chairman of the Tribunal under Section 25 of the 1985 Act is purely an administrative power to transfer cases from one Bench to another, which can be exercised on an application by any party or even on his own motion in a given case and where the facts and circumstances so warrant… Therefore, it may not be wrong to hold that the administrative powers are akin to the power of the Master of Roster, who alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate cases,” the Court held..The observations came from the bench as it dismissed a petition filed by former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay challenging the order passed by the CAT Chairman transferring a case filed by him before Kolkata bench to its principal seat in Delhi.Bandyopadhyay had challenged the charge-sheet issued to him by the Central government on allegations that he did not attend the review meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s to take stock of the damage caused by cyclone Yaas in 2021.However, the matter was transferred to Delhi before any hearing could take place. Bandyopadhyay challenged the order of the CAT Chairman before the Calcutta High Court, which set it aside.Subsequent to an appeal by the Centre, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court, holding that any decision of the CAT at Delhi, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, could be subjected to scrutiny "only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal concerned falls."In this case, the jurisdictional High Court being Delhi High Court, Bandyopadhyay filed the present petition before it..The Delhi High Court in its judgment today rejected Bandyopadhyay’s argument that he was not given an opportunity for hearing as ‘misconceived’ and ‘devoid of merit’. It noted that the transfer order clearly says that he was represented by a team of counsel including a senior counsel who had ‘vociferously argued’ and objected to the transferring of the application..The Court also rejected the contention that under Rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, it is his statutory right and option to file an application before Kolkata Bench since he was residing in West Bengal.It held that the while there is no doubt that the Rule 6(2) provides this option to the applicant but it cannot override the power of the chairperson under Section 25 of the Act.“If this proposition is to be accepted, it would result in a situation where in no case, an O.A. filed by an applicant, who has ceased to be in service, invoking Rule 6(2) at a place of his choice, would be open to transfer to another Bench, by the Chairman. This would make Section 25 redundant and subservient to Rule 6(2), which could not have been the intent of the Legislature while enacting Section 25 of the 1985 Act,” the Court said..The judges also said that the scope of judicial review on an administrative decision is extremely limited and can only be exercised to scrutinize the decision-making process.“This Court finds no infirmity in the exercise of the administrative power, either on the procedural aspects or on the merits. Being purely an administrative power of the Chairman, it is not for this Court to substitute its decision or wisdom for that of the Chairman as no illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity has been found in the decision-making process.”The petition was, therefore, dismissed. .While Bandyopadhyay was represented by advocate Karthikey Bhatt, Centre was represented by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjeet Banerjee, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Kirtiman Singh as well as advocates Waize Ali Noor, Taha Yasin and Srirupa Nag..[Read Judgment]