Summary
The Court held that a challenge to the CAT Chairman’s order transferring an original application from Kolkata to the Principal Bench at New Delhi lay before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The cause of action underlying the original service dispute did not determine the High Court competent to review the separate transfer order. It set aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment for want of jurisdiction, expunged its disparaging remarks against the Chairman and preserved liberty to challenge the transfer before the competent High Court. The transfer’s merits were left open.
Issues
- Which High Court could review the CAT Chairman’s transfer order passed at the Principal Bench in New Delhi.
- Whether the underlying service dispute’s cause of action conferred jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court.
Provisions considered
- Section 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985A transfer application and the order deciding it are distinct from the original service application; review lies before the High Court for the Bench passing the transfer order. (¶¶ 4-6, 12-17)
- Rule 6, Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987The rules determining where an original application may be filed do not determine which High Court reviews a separate transfer order. (¶¶ 4, 6, 12, 15)
- Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of IndiaApplying L. Chandra Kumar, the competent forum was a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territory the Tribunal Bench passing the challenged order was situated. (¶ 16-18)
Held
- The cause of action for an original service application and that for challenging an order transferring it are different. Facts supporting the filing of the original application at Kolkata could not determine the High Court competent to review the separate transfer order passed at New Delhi. (¶¶ 6, 12-15)
- L. Chandra Kumar’s rule subjecting all Tribunal decisions to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal falls includes transfer orders under Section 25. A smaller Bench or a High Court could not revisit that binding exposition through a fresh cause-of-action analysis under Article 226(2). (¶ 16-17)
- Because the Chairman passed the challenged order sitting at the Principal Bench in New Delhi, judicial review lay before the Delhi High Court. The Calcutta High Court’s judgment was without jurisdiction and void from inception. (¶ 17-18)
- The disparaging remarks against the Chairman were unnecessary and rested on unfounded assumptions. Both sides had been heard, and speed of disposal did not supply exceptional grounds for the strictures; the remarks were expunged. (¶ 8)
- Dismissal of the writ petition was accompanied by liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. Neither the transfer order’s correctness nor the underlying disciplinary dispute was decided. (¶¶ 3, 18-19)
Result
Appeal allowed; Calcutta High Court judgment set aside and writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the competent High Court; disparaging remarks expunged; transfer merits left open.