Advertisement
The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated by the Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance and Pensions.
Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the transfer order was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play as he was not even granted a right to file his written objections and the Centre’s plea was allowed on the very first day of its listing.
He had claimed that convenience of the officer has to be considered while issuing the order and the petitioner ordinarily and permanently resides in Kolkata and the entire cause of action occurred within the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Bench of CAT.
Related Articles
Advertisement
Bandyopadhyay, who was not released by the state government, chose to retire on May 31, 2021, his original date of superannuation before having been given an extension of three months from that date.
The Union government had filed a transfer petition before the principal bench of CAT, which on October 22 last year allowed the transfer of Bandyopadhyay’s application to itself in New Delhi.
On January 6, the Supreme Court had set aside a Calcutta High Court order which quashed the CAT transfer order and granted Bandyopadhyay the liberty to assail the same before the jurisdictional high court.
The apex court had delivered its verdict on a plea filed by the Centre challenging the October 29, 2021 order of the Calcutta High Court.