The Calcutta High Court Thursday dismissed the application filed by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee seeking to recall the order passed by Justice Abhijit Banerjee ordering a CBI and ED probe against him in the school jobs for cash scam [Abhishek Banerjee vs Soumen Nandy]..Single-judge Justice Amrita Sinha also dismissed the plea filed by arrested accused Kuntal Ghosh, who had alleged that he was being tortured by the ED officers to implicate Abhishek Banerjee in the case.Importantly, the Court also imposed costs of ₹25 lakh on each of them. "Both the applications are dismissed, with costs of ₹50 lakh. Each one has to deposit ₹25 lakh," Justice Sinha pronounced in the court.In her order, justice Sinha also pulled up the CBI and the ED for its slow pace in the investigations. "Whatever that is mentioned in the sealed envelopes is of pre-historic age. The agencies have given details of what happened in 2022 but we are in 2023. No new and recent development ia mentioned in these envelopes. Are the agencies waiting for the evidences to be vanished?" Justice Sinha told the advocates representing both CBI and ED. The judge was hearing applications filed by Banerjee and Ghosh challenging the April 13 order passed by Justice Gangopadhyay, by which, he had ordered the CBI and the ED to probe Banerjee's role in the scam. The said order was passed on a plea filed by ED seeking protection from action by State Police against its officers as the accused Ghosh had made some allegations against the ED officers. He had alleged that the officers were subjecting him to torture and forcing him to implicate Banerjee in the case. Justice Gangopadhyay had noted that the allegations made by Ghosh were in proximity with the public speech made by Banerjee on March 29, who too claimed that people arrested in the case are being forced to name him.Later the matter had gotten transferred to Justice Sinha pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court had on April 28 ordered the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to reassign the case from Justice Gangopadhyay's bench to some other bench as the judge had given an interview to ABP Ananda against Banerjee.A notification was issued by the High Court on May 1 pursuant to the top court's order and the matters was assigned to Justice Sinha..Senior advocate Kishore Datta, appearing for Banerjee submitted that the ED did not make any prayer or pleading against his client in its application before Justice Gangopadhyay."The judge (Justice Gangopadhyay), however, said in his order that there was some connection between my client's speech and the complaints made by accused Kuntal Ghosh. One needs to question as to on what basis were these findings arrived at? He made some observations but based on what material? It was an ex-parte order," Banerjee's lawyer had argued.The application filed by the ED that was heard by Justice Gangopadhyay was not for a probe against Banerjee, but rather dealt with complaints made by Ghosh against some investigating officers, he had added."The judge digressed from one point to the other. Thus, I have alleged bias against the judge and that is why the Supreme Court has transferred probe from him," the counsel submitted.Citing some orders of the Supreme Court, the counsel submitted that judges cannot hear cases beyond the roster."If the judge in the instant case desired that the present matter be heard by him, he could have at best passed an order to place the case papers before the Chief Justice for transferring cases to himself. But such a thing never happened in the instant case," he argued.The judge went on air to speak about Banerjee and wanted to issue a contempt notice to him, but couldn't do so, as a division bench already took up my matter, he continued."Please note that the Supreme Court has removed the matter from that judge's (Justice Gangopadhyay's) board. This doesn't add to the glory of our High Court. It doesn't add to the glory of our traditions. A transfer is done in rare cases and not in the usual course. The top court has taken stern action against the judge for his conduct. All this reflects bias on his part."