A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Rabindranath Samanta of Calcutta High Court today set aside the order of CAT principal bench in New Delhi, transferring to itself the matter of former state chief secretary Alapan Bandopadhyay, and directed the tribunal Kolkata bench to decide the matter expeditiously.

Bandopahdyay had moved the Calcutta high court challenging the CAT decision of transferring his case to the principal bench. Earlier, judgement in this matter was reserved by the court. The department of personnel and training had issued a show cause notice to Bandopadhyay asking him, “why he had not attended a meeting of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Kalaikunda on 28 May.”

A meeting was chaired by Modi at Kalaikunda on 28 May in the aftermath of cyclone Yaas which chief minister Mamata Banerjee attended briefly along with the then chief secretary Alapan Bandopadhyay following which he was mired in a fiasco.

Bandopadhayay had replied that only the state government where the IAS officer is posted has the jurisdiction to carry out an enquiry into the conduct of the officer. DoPT, however, set up an inquiry committee against him to investigation his alleged misconduct and asked him to appear before it in New Delhi.

Bandopadhayay had challenged it at CAT , Kolkata but DoPT had moved the principal Bench of CAT in Delhi urging it to shift it and it was granted. Bandopadhyay’s counsel said that the matter was heard in the CAT on 22 October but getting the notice for it on 21 October, they did not have sufficient time to prepare their reply.

It was observed that the petition was disposed off with less than 24 hours’ notice to the writ petitioner who lives far off from the Principal Seat at New Delhi which shocks the judicial conscience, to say the least.

Moreover, the application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act, filed at the behest of the writ petitioner, was at an inchoate, pre-admission stage and could not be said to be “pending” within the purview of Section 25 of the said Act.

It was held inter-alia that the Principal Bench had no right to finally transfer the matter to itself without proper notice and opportunity of hearing to both sides, including the present writ petitioner. The periphery of the exercise of the power of transfer under Section 25 of the 1985 Act has been sufficiently indicated within the contours of Rule 6 of the CAT Rules, 1987.

The proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6 makes the jurisdiction in respect of serving officers subject to Section 25 of the 1985 Act, whereas such restriction is conspicuous by its absence in the very next subRule, that is, Sub-Rule (2).

The latter, in addition, is bolstered by a non-obstante clause, making it immune to Sub-Rule (1) lock, stock and barrel, thus excluding the sway of Section 25 of the 1985 Act as well, which finds place in Sub-Rule (1) but not (2). On withdrawal of the departmental order dated 25 May notifying the extension of the petitioner’s service till 31 August by dint of the Order dated 31 May such extension was nullified, thereby effectively superannuation the writ petitioner on his original date of superannuation itself, that is, 31 May 2021.

Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of the CAT Rules is thus applicable to the petitioner, in complete exclusion of sub-Rule (1), including the fetter of subordination under Section 25 of the 1985 Act, as opposed to Sub-Rule (1), by virtue of the non-obstante clause of sub-Rule (2).