Full Judgment Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: October 09, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 6326/2023, CM APPL. 24856/2023
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Azmat H. Amanullah, ASC with
Mr. Hardik Choudhary, Adv.
versus
AMIT LODHA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Sunil, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Ripu Daman Bharadwaj, CGSC
with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, GP for
R-2 & R-3/UOI
AND
+ W.P.(C) 7341/2023, CM APPL. 28535/2023
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Azmat H. Amanullah, ASC with
Mr. Hardik Choudhary, Adv.
versus
AMIT LODHA AND ORS & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Sunil, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Ripu Daman Bharadwaj, CGSC
with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, GP for
R-2 & R-3/UOI
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 1 of 15
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. The captioned writ petitions have been filed by the State of
Bihar assailing orders dated March 02, 2023 and March 17, 2023,
passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi in Transfer Petitions bearing PT
No.06/2023 and PT No. 27/2023 respectively, whereby an Original
Application filed by the respondent No.1 that was pending before the
Patna Bench of the Tribunal was transferred to the Principal Bench at
New Delhi, and another Original Application filed by the respondent
No. 1 before the Principal Bench was retained.
2. At the outset we may briefly narrate the facts leading up to the
present petitions. The petitioners herein are State of Bihar and its
functionaries. The respondent No.1 is an Indian Police Service (IPS)
Officer of the 1998 Batch of Bihar Cadre posted in the State of Bihar.
3. On July 12, 2022, a decision was taken by the petitioners vide
Memorandum No. 6932 issued by the Department of Home, to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.1 under Rule 8 of
the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (‘ Rules of
1969’ , hereinafter). The allegations against the respondent No.1 was
that when he was posted as Inspector General of Police, Magadh Zone,
Gaya, he, in review of Magadh Medical Police Station Case
No.197/2021, adopted a biased attitude and in various other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 2 of 15
Departmental Proceedings bearing Nos. 43/2020, 20/2017, 140/2016,
141/2016, 40/2020 and 92/2019 provided undue benefits/reliefs to
some officers. That apart, the suspension period of one delinquent Mr.
Ravi Bhushan who was a Station House Officer at Jehanabad was
disposed of by the respondent No.1 in a suspicious manner. The
Articles of Charges and the Statement of Imputations of Misbehavior
and Misconduct alleged corruption and gross irregularities in his work,
indicative of his indiscipline, arbitrariness, ignorance and
incompetence towards his duty, which is derogatory to dignitary of a
Senior Police Officer, culpable under Rule 3(1), 3(1A)(i), 3(1A)(iii),
3(1A)(iv), 3(2A), 3(2B)(iii), 3(2B)(viii), 3(2B)(x) and 3(2B)(xiii) of
the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 (‘Rules of 1968’,
hereinafter).
4. The respondent No.1 challenged the said proceedings in O.A.
No. 860/2022 before the Patna Bench of the Tribunal. His case was
that he is one of the youngest officers of 1998 batch of Bihar Cadre,
and is number one in his batch. He has been empanelled as Inspector
General by the Central Government and his name was cleared after a
rigorous appraisal of integrity, conduct and professionalism. He has
served with distinction in different capacities assigned to him and has
been awarded the Police Medal for Gallantry, the President’s Medal
for Meritorious Service and the Utkrisht Seva Medal. His case was that
the charges against him are vague and meaningless and does not
amount to any misbehavior or misconduct for which a disciplinary
proceeding may be justifiably initiated. He contended that in the
absence of any specific charge of mala fide or illegal gratification, his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 3 of 15
actions cannot result in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. If the
delinquent officer passes a judicial/quasi judicial order, the same
cannot be treated as having been passed by exceeding his power for
any corrupt motive. It is a settled proposition of law that misconduct
must necessarily be measured in terms of its nature and be examined as
to whether it has been detrimental to public interest. The respondent
No.1 evidently has taken lawful action in terms of established
procedures/rules and as such the alleged charges are based on surmises
and conjectures. Even if the charges are taken on their face value and
are construed as error of judgment, the same cannot be termed as
‘misconduct’ as it is an established principle that error of judgment,
carelessness or negligence in performance of duty cannot be construed
as misconduct.
5. He has also alleged in the O.A. that the proceedings have been
initiated only for the reason that he has reversed various erroneous and
illegal decisions of the then Senior Superintendent of Police, who was
being protected by the Director General of Police, Bihar.
6. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 filed a Transfer Petition
bearing PT No.06/2023 under Section 25 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 (‘ Act of 1985 ’, hereinafter), whereby he has
sought transfer of the O.A. from Patna Bench of the Tribunal to the
Principal Bench at New Delhi. The basis for the Transfer Petition as
put forth by the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, and now before
this Court is that the entire actions of the petitioners in initiating the
disciplinary proceedings is ill motivated, in order to deprive the
applicant of his promotion to the next post of Additional Director
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 4 of 15
General of Police. It would be in the interest of justice for the case to
be heard outside the State of Bihar, as the case of the respondent No.1
is against the state authorities and is sensitive.
7. The transfer petition was allowed by the Chairman of the
Tribunal and the O.A. was transferred from Patna Bench to the
Principal Bench at New Delhi vide order dated March 03, 2023.
8. Meanwhile, another Memorandum was issued initiating
separate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.1, which
was challenged by the respondent No.1 in a fresh O.A. before the
Principal Bench along with a Transfer Petition bearing PT No.27/2023
seeking retention of the fresh O.A. before the Principal Bench instead
of the Patna Bench which exercised actual territorial jurisdiction. PT
No.27/2023 was allowed by the Chairman on March 17, 2023 upon the
respondent No.1 citing the order dated March 02, 2023.
9. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by
the order dated March 02, 2023 and the resultant transfer of O.A.
No.860/2022 (now renumbered as O.A. No.973/2023) and also the
order dated March 17, 2023 and the resultant retention of the fresh
O.A. filed by the respondent (now numbered as O.A. No.1130/2023).
10. Mr. Azmat H. Amanullah, learned ASC for the State of Bihar,
submitted that the impugned orders are cryptic, nonspeaking and
passed in an extremely mechanical manner as would be clear from a
perusal of the orders. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the
orders dated March 02, 2023 and March 17, 2023 hereunder:-
Order dated March 02, 2023
― Order of The Tribunal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 5 of 15
For the reasons stated in para Nos. 3&4 of this PT and in
exercise of powers under Section 25 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, I allow this PT. Accordingly, the
petitioner’s prayer for transfer of OA No. 860/2022 pending
adjudication before Patna Bench is transferred to Principal
Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi.
The Registry is directed to take necessary steps in this
regard. ”
Order dated March 27, 2023
― Order of the Tribunal
For the reasons stated in the P.T. and in exercise of powers
under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
r/w Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1987, I allow this P.T. allowed and
retain the proceedings of the subject O.A. at Principal
Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi.‖
11. Mr. Amanullah submitted that insofar as the order dated March
02, 2023 is concerned, a bare perusal of the Transfer Petition would
show that the same does not even contain paragraphs 3 and 4, and the
ostensible reasons for which the transfer was sought were mentioned in
sub-paragraphs of paragraph No.2, all of which were devoid of any
merit.
12. His contention is that the power conferred upon the Chairman
of the Tribunal under Section 25 of the Act of 1985 cannot be
exercised arbitrarily and without any basis. To hold to the contrary
would render the entire purpose of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act,
which deals with distribution business of the Tribunal amongst its
Benches and filing of applications on the basis of jurisdiction, otiose.
He stated further that the territorial jurisdiction of Patna Bench covers
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 6 of 15
the States of Bihar and Jharkhand, while the territorial jurisdiction of
the Principal Bench covers the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
13. The respondent No.1 is an IPS Officer of the Bihar Cadre
currently posted as Inspector General, State Crime Records Bureau,
Bihar and resides at Patna. The disciplinary proceedings have been
initiated by the Home Department, Government of Bihar, with respect
to actions taken by the respondent No.1 while serving within the State
of Bihar. He stated that without prejudice, the cause of action, if any at
all, wholly arose within the jurisdiction of Patna Bench of the Tribunal.
14. Even in the transfer petitions, the respondent No.1 did not
allege or disclose any ground to show how he is being prejudiced by
the proceedings before the Patna Bench, and as such the transfer
petitions needed to be dismissed in limine . This shows that the
respondent No.1 was attempting to indulge in forum shopping.
15. He has controverted the stand of the respondent No.1 that as he
is an All India Service Officer, is governed by the Rules of 1968, and
since the Union of India, under whose control and supervision the
Department of Home, Patna, operates, has its office in Delhi, the
Principal Bench would have the jurisdiction to entertain the issue.
According to him, accepting this argument would lead to absurdity and
would open floodgates, increasing the workload of the Principal
Bench, defeating the very purpose of setting up multiple Benches.
16. He has also opposed the grounds set up in the Transfer
Petitions by the respondent No.1 including the allegations that the
disciplinary proceedings are ill motivated and malicious in nature, by
stating that while there is no truth or basis to these allegations, it is the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 7 of 15
Tribunal, Courts and other quasi-judicial fora that are to
dispassionately assess such pleas and allegations and arrive at the truth.
Such allegations cannot be a viable ground for transferring a petition as
the same would send a wrong message that the concerned Bench could
not be trusted to handle the matters involving such allegations. That
apart, he has also stated that the respondent No.1 has failed to indicate
as to how the matter was sensitive and whether the standard of such
sensitivity would warrant a transfer out of the State of Bihar.
17. According to Mr. Amanullah, if the impugned order is upheld
on the basis of the allegations of the petitioner, the same would open
floodgates for similar applications on similar vague grounds, and
despite a bar of jurisdiction, the litigants will seek and be permitted to
engage in forum shopping to transfer/retain petitions to/at a Bench of
their choice.
18. That apart, a perusal of Section 25 of the Act of 1985 read with
Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987,
would indicate that its purpose is to facilitate requests for transfer, of
those persons who, due to retirement, dismissal or termination of
service may not find it convenient to litigate their grievance before the
Bench having territorial jurisdiction. The powers under Section 25
must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only where valid
grounds are made out. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay, 2022 (3) SCC 133 (‘ Alapan Bandyopadhyay – I ’,
hereinafter).
19. Mr. S. Sunil, learned counsel for the private respondent has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 8 of 15
reiterated the submissions made before the Tribunal, that the
disciplinary proceedings are ill motivated and malicious, undertaken
by abusing the process of law, with a view to obstruct/halt the
promotion of the respondent No.1 to the higher post of Additional
Director General of Police. Additionally, he submitted that the
Chairman has adequate powers under Section 25 of the Act of 1985, to
transfer any case pending before any Bench of the Tribunal, on an
application by the parties, or even suo moto . As per him, the Tribunal
was completely justified in passing the impugned orders
transferring/retaining the O.As. To buttress his arguments, he has
referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V. Narasimha Rao
v. State (CBI/SPE), SLP (Crl.) No. 2048/1996 decided on August 22,
1996 and of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Alapan
Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 683
(‘ Alapan Bandyopadhyay – II’, hereinafter), passed pursuant to the
judgment in Alapan Bandyopadhyay – I.
FINDINGS
20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset,
we may state here that W.P.(C) 6326/2023 has been filed by the
petitioners herein challenging the order of the Tribunal in PT No.
06/2023 whereby the Tribunal has transferred the OA filed by the
respondent No.1 to the Principal Bench, New Delhi. W.P.(C)
7341/2023 arises from an order passed in PT No. 27/2023, wherein the
Tribunal has directed the retention of the OA filed by respondent No.1
before the Principal Bench, New Delhi itself.
21. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 9 of 15
Tribunal was justified in transferring the OA which is pending before
the Patna Bench of the Tribunal to New Delhi and also directing the
retention of the OA filed before the Principal Bench, New Delhi.
22. Coming to W.P.(C) 6326/2023, the petitioners herein had
opposed PT No. 06/2023 before the Chairman on grounds identical to
those put forth by them in these proceedings. The same are not
repeated for the sake of brevity. From a perusal of the submissions
advanced by Mr. Amanullah, it can be noted that one of the issues
raised to contest the order of transfer is that though the impugned order
dated March 2, 2023 records that it is for the reasons stated in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Transfer Petition that the petition is being
allowed, there are no such paragraphs 3 and 4 in the PT No. 06/2023.
We agree with the submission of Mr. Amanullah that though
paragraphs 3 and 4 could not be found in PT No. 06/2023, the
ostensible reasons for which the transfer was being sought can be
found in sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of paragraph 2 of the Transfer
Petition. The omission of a reference to paragraph 2 may be an error.
23. It is noted that the impugned order does not refer either to the
stand taken by the parties in support of their respective cases or the
actual reasons for allowing the petition.
24. We may state here Mr. Sunil appearing for respondent No.1
has sought to justify the impugned orders by stating that the
proceedings which have been initiated against respondent No.1 are ill-
motivated and malicious undertaken by abusing the process of law
with a view to obstruct and halt the promotion of respondent No.1 to
the higher post of Additional Director General of Police. He does state
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 10 of 15
that though this stand taken by the respondent No.1 is not against the
Patna Bench of the Tribunal; since it is against the action taken by
State functionaries, it shall be appropriate that the matter is transferred
to the Principal Bench.
25. Before deciding upon the issue raised with regard to the
legality of the impugned orders, it is necessary to reproduce Section 25
of the Act of 1985, which reads as under:-
―25. Power of Chairman to transfer cases from one
Bench to another.—On the application of any of the
parties and after notice to the parties, and after hearing
such of them as he may desire to be heard, or on his own
motion without such notice, the Chairman may transfer
any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any
other Bench.‖
26. The law with regard to the nature of power exercised by the
Chairman of the Tribunal has been settled by the Supreme Court in the
case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi,
(2020) 17 SCC 602, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that the
power to transfer cases from one Bench to another under Section 25 is
an administrative power of the Chairman.
27. Though it is trite law that the scope of judicial review of an
administrative action is very narrow, and it cannot be subjected to the
same rigours as would be applied to a judicial order, there cannot be
any dispute or contest that even an authority exercising administrative
power is required to follow the principles of natural justice. In fact, in
Alapan Bandyopadhyay – II (supra) , a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment, on a similar issue, while
referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 11 of 15
Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, has observed as under:-
―24. We also find merit in the contention of the
Respondents that the scope of judicial review of an
administrative decision is extremely limited and can
only be exercised to scrutinize the decision making
process. In Tata Cellular (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has culled out the principles delineating the scope
of judicial interference and relevant paras from the
judgment are as under :-
"77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to
the question of legality. Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority
exceeded its powers?
2. Committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural
justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable
tribunal would have reached or,
5. abused its powers.
…..‖
28. One of the three pillars of the principles of natural justice is the
requirement of passing a reasoned or speaking order. Such an exercise
introduces fairness in administrative actions and helps minimise and
exclude arbitrariness to a great extent. It serves as an explanation as to
what is the reason behind any order, which is an indispensable part of a
sound judicial system.
29. In fact, we are of the view that this shall be the requirement in
law, even if the Chairman is exercising powers under Section 25 of the
Act of 1985. The Chairman was to record and specify the reasons for
his decision, more so, when the parties before him have taken stands at
variance with each other, i.e., the prayer of the respondent No.1 for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 12 of 15
transfer of the petition was opposed by the petitioners herein. This we
say so in view of the observations made by this Court in Alapan
Bandyopadhyay – II (supra) wherein in paragraph 25, this Court has
upheld an order passed by the Chairman by stating ―The order records
the contentions of both the parties and has recorded reasons for
transferring the petition from Kolkata to the Delhi Bench of the
Tribunal. This Court finds no infirmity in the exercise of the
administrative power, either on the procedural aspects or on the
merits.‖
30. Additionally, we are fortified in our reasoning as the Chairman
in the instant case, is not exercising his suo moto power as
contemplated under Section 25 of the Act of 1985. Rather the exercise
of power is on an application filed by the respondent No.1, pursuant to
which notice was issued and arguments were heard from both sides. In
such a circumstance, the petition seeking transfer of the proceedings
from one Bench to another becomes an adversarial litigation, and
therefore it was incumbent upon the Chairman to pass a reasoned order
evidencing the reasons for his decision, in the interest of justice.
31. One of the submissions of Mr. Amanullah was that the
impugned orders render Sections 18 and 19 of the Act of 1985 otiose.
Suffice it to state, we are not impressed by the said plea, as under
Section 25 of the Act, the Chairman is expressly vested with the power
to transfer cases from one Bench of the Tribunal to another.
32. Now coming to W.P.(C) 7341/2023, the same as stated above,
impugns the order dated March 17, 2023 in PT No. 27/2023, wherein
the Chairman has stated that the same is allowed for the reasons stated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 13 of 15
in the Transfer Petition. Much like the order dated March 2, 2023 in
PT No. 06/2023, there is no reference to the stand taken by the parties,
and no specific reasoning given to buttress the decision to allow the
petition.
33. We note that a detailed reply was filed by the petitioners herein
to PT No. 27/2023, wherein similar submissions as noted hereinbefore
were made. It is stated by Mr. Amanullah that during the hearing of the
petition before the Chairman, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 had
made a reference to the order dated March 2, 2023 in PT No. 06/2023
to support his case.
34. Be that as it may, we have already held that the order passed
on March 2, 2023 in PT No. 06/2023 is devoid of any reasoning, which
is one of the cornerstones of the principles of natural justice, more so,
when the petitioners- the State of Bihar had contested the Transfer
Petition. The issue being similar in this writ petition, this order dated
March 17, 2023 passed by the Chairman is also untenable.
35. Though, Mr. Sunil has relied upon the judgment in the case of
P.V. Narasimha Rao (supra) , in view of our conclusion that the
impugned orders are untenable, the same need not be gone into.
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the orders
dated March 2, 2023 and March 27, 2023 passed by the Chairman in
PT Nos. 06/2023 and 27/2023, respectively. The same are revived on
the Board of the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, who shall
consider the Transfer Petitions afresh by hearing the counsel for the
parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
Till such time, no proceedings shall be held in OA 860/2022 (now re-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 14 of 15
numbered 973/2023) and OA No.1130/2022 which are pending before
the Principal Bench.
37. Accordingly, we fix the date of hearing in the above Transfer
rd
Petitions before the Chairman of the Tribunal on 3 November, 2023.
38. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No
costs.
CM APPL. 24856/2023 in W.P.(C) 6326/2023
CM APPL. 28535/2023 in W.P.(C) 7341/2023
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
OCTOBER 09, 2023 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:09.10.2023
17:04:31
W.P.(C) 6326/2023 & connected matter Page 15 of 15