Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 243 (CAL)

Kalipada Pattanayak v. Union of India

2017-03-03

NISHITA MHATRE, TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petition has been preferred against an order, passed by the Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench on 28th February, 2017 in O.A. 371 of 2017 and M.A. 605 of 2016. 2. The Petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing WPCT 283 of 2016 as an interim order granted to him in respect of his transfer from Kolkata to New Delhi was modified on 10th November, 2016. That transfer order was stayed by us on 24th November, 2016. We were informed that the Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench was available to hear matters on 6th February, 2017 and we found that without any miscellaneous application being filed, the Tribunal had modified the earlier order passed on 26th April, 2016. However, as the original application was to be heard before the Tribunal on 6th February, 2017, we desisted from passing any comments on that order. We then observed that: “The stay order granted on 26th April, 2016 which has been continued by us by an order dated 24th November, 2016, shall continue till 28th February, 2017 or till final orders are passed by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier. The Tribunal while deciding the Original Application will be uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order.” 3. The Petitioner has rushed to this Court because the interim order has been vacated again by the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, sitting singly. 4. We have been informed that the matter was heard by the Tribunal on 14th, 15th and 16th February, 2017. Finally on 16th February, 2017 the judgment was reserved. However, the Tribunal had directed the Union of India to produce some documents. Those documents were produced on 23rd February, 2017 and surprisingly, no copy was served on the Petitioner. The Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench went on leave on 27th February, 2017 and he is still on leave. Strangely, on 27th February, 2017 the Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench informed Mr. B.B. Chatterjee the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India and Others before the Tribunal to locate Mr. S.K. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. However, as Mr. Dutta was not available in the premises on that day, she informed Mr. Strangely, on 27th February, 2017 the Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench informed Mr. B.B. Chatterjee the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India and Others before the Tribunal to locate Mr. S.K. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. However, as Mr. Dutta was not available in the premises on that day, she informed Mr. Chatterjee that O.A. 371 of 2016 and M.A. 605 of 2016 would be listed before the Court on the next day (i.e., on 28th February, 2017). 5. On 28th February, 2017, the Administrative Member sitting singly vacated the interim order on the ground that our order dated 27.1.2017 had mentioned that the interim order would continue till 28th February, 2017 or till final orders are passed whichever is earlier. 6. We had presumed that when the matter was fixed for hearing on 6th February, 2017, it would be disposed of before 28th February, 2017 and it is for this reason that we had directed that the interim order would continue till either 28th February, 2017 or till final orders are passed, whichever is earlier. Unfortunately, it appears that the Administrative Member lost sight of the spirit in which the order was passed and vacated the interim order. Not only has she been found to take special interest in this matter for reasons best known to her, she has acted completely without jurisdiction while vacating the interim order. We expect that a member of the Tribunal, who has been functioning since 2013, would know how matters are to be conducted. But, it is apparent from the conduct of the member of the Administrative Tribunal that she has decided not to follow the Administrative Tribunal Act and the procedure for conducting matters before the Tribunal. There is no reason why when the orders were reserved on 16th February, 2017 and when the final orders were not passed till 27th February, 2017 before the Judicial Member went on leave, the interim order was vacated. This unnecessary interest in the present matter which the Administrative Member has displayed, leads us to believe that the Petitioner would not get justice before a Bench of which she is a member. 7. We, therefore, direct that although arguments have been heard in this matter, the matter will be re-heard before another Bench of which Jaya Das Gupta is not a member. 8. 7. We, therefore, direct that although arguments have been heard in this matter, the matter will be re-heard before another Bench of which Jaya Das Gupta is not a member. 8. The interim order passed on 27th January, 2017 by this Court shall continue till the original application is finally disposed of. 9. The writ petition is disposed of.