Delhi High Court
Alapan Bandyopadhyay vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 February, 2026
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Jyoti Singh
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 17th October 2025
Date of Decision: 19th February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 1028/2022
ALAPAN BANDYOPADHYAY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Behera, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Kunal Vajani, Mr. Kunal Mimani, Mr. Kartikey
Bhatt and Mr. Prashant Alai, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG with
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra,
Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Suraj, Mr. Kartik Dey and
Mr. Mayank Sansanwal, Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J.
REVIEW PET. 80/2022, CM APPLs. 19486/2022, 1219/2025,
54267/2025 & 54272/2025
1. This review petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking review and
recall of judgment dated 07.03.2022.
2. To the extent necessary, the factual matrix is that Petitioner joined
IAS in 1987 and was allocated the West Bengal Cadre. Petitioner
superannuated on 31.05.2021, while working as Chief Secretary of the State
of West Bengal. On 16.06.2021, a major penalty chargesheet was issued to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 1 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
the Petitioner by the Respondents under Rule 8 of the All India Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 6 of All India Services
(Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. Enquiry Officer was
appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry and preliminary hearing was
scheduled for 18.10.2021.
3. On receiving the hearing notice, Petitioner filed an application under
Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (‘1985 Act’) being O.A.
No. 1619/2021, challenging the chargesheet and consequential orders of
appointing the Enquiry Officer etc., before the Kolkata Bench of the
Tribunal. Respondents filed a Transfer Petition before the Principal Bench
of the Tribunal under Section 25 of 1985 Act, seeking transfer of the O.A. to
the Principal Bench. By order dated 22.10.2021, Tribunal allowed the
Transfer Petition and directed listing of O.A. No. 1619/2021 for admission
on 27.10.2021.
4. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Calcutta High
Court in W.P.C.T. No. 78/2021. On 27.10.2021, Tribunal issued notice in
the O.A., which was accepted by the Respondents and matter was adjourned
to 12.11.2021. By judgment dated 29.10.2021, Calcutta High Court allowed
the writ petition filed by the Petitioner and set aside the order of the
Tribunal, transferring the O.A. Respondents herein challenged the judgment
before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 18338/2021, primarily on the ground
that Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a
challenge to the order passed by the Principal Bench at New Delhi. The SLP
was allowed on 06.01.2022 and the judgment of Calcutta High Court was set
aside on lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the Petitioner to assail
the order of the Tribunal before the jurisdictional High Court and in this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 2 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
backdrop, Petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court, from which the
present review petition emanates.
5. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated
07.03.2022, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.10.2021
passed by the Tribunal transferring the O.A. from Kolkata Bench of the
Tribunal. It was held that the impugned order was passed within the four
corners of Section 25 of 1985 Act, which confers power on the Chairman of
the Tribunal to transfer cases from one Bench to another. Court also found
that due notice was given to the Petitioner and counsels representing him
were duly heard before the transfer order was passed. Insofar as the
arguments on merits of the chargesheet were concerned, Court did not
adjudicate the issues as this was beyond the scope of the writ petition, which
was concerned with a challenge to the transfer order. Petitioner now seeks
review/recall of judgment dated 07.03.2022.
6. Mr. A.K. Behera, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the judgment dated 07.03.2022 deserves to be reviewed on multiple
grounds. It was urged that Petitioner was deprived of an effective
opportunity of hearing as no pass over was granted to the junior counsel
representing the Petitioner, which he sought since the Senior Advocates
engaged by the Petitioner were not available on the first call. Throughout the
history of litigation in the present case in all forums, Petitioner had been
represented by Senior Counsels and therefore, as per the past practice of this
Court, a pass over ought to have been granted by the Court. Moreover, the
Court has not considered the submissions and judgments referred to by the
Petitioner in the written submissions filed in advance as also the
supplementary written submissions filed after the judgment was reserved on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 3 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
25.02.2022.
7. It was also argued that this Court overlooked the fact that the Tribunal
passed the transfer order in violation of principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as despite requests made on behalf of the Petitioner, no
opportunity was granted to file objections/reply to the petition or produce
judgments, thereby denying effective opportunity of hearing. In this context
reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of
India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, (2022) 3 SCC 133 and State of Gujarat v.
RS Yadav & Anr., 2002 SCC OnLine Del 198.
8. On merits, it was urged that the Court has erred in proceeding on the
premise that power of the Chairman of the Tribunal under Section 25 of
1985 Act is purely an administrative power and separate from decision
making power on the judicial side. Court has further erred in holding that
power under Section 25 is akin to power of ‘Master of Roster’ exercised by
Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of the High Courts and basis this
erroneous premise, Court came to a wrong conclusion that judicial review of
a decision taken under Section 25 is extremely limited and restricted to
scrutinizing the decision making process and not the decision itself. In
Manju Varma (Dr.) v. State of UP and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 73, the
Supreme Court held that in ordering transfer of the case under the 1948
Amalgamation Order, the Chief Justice was acting as an adjudicating body
empowered by the Constitution to discharge judicial functions and his order
was therefore, amenable to correction under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India. It was also held that power of transfer from one territorial
jurisdiction is distinct from the power of the Chief Justice to frame a roster
to determine the jurisdiction of judicial work in the High Court. In the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 4 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
supplementary written submissions, apart from this judgment Petitioner had
specifically referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in AIIMS v.
Sanjiv Chaturvedi and Others (2020) 17 SCC 602, wherein it was observed
that even while exercising power under Section 25 of 1985 Act, the learned
Chairman acts judicially.
9. To argue that the power of the Chairman under Section 25 is not
administrative in nature, learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra), wherein it was
held that power of transfer from one Bench to another is an extraordinary
power and must be exercised with great circumspection and sparingly. An
order under Section 25 can only be passed after giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties as also after hearing them and the power must be
exercised in the interest of justice. These observations clearly connote that
the decision taken under Section 25 is not merely administrative in nature
and is instead a quasi-judicial order, which must satisfy the ingredients of a
quasi-judicial order as laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak and
Others v. Union of India and Others, (1969) 2 SCC 262. Therefore, the
decision making process cannot be restricted treating the order of the
Tribunal as an administrative order.
10. It was further argued that in Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari and
Others, (2009) 1 SCC 130, the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 24
CPC, which is pari materia to Section 25, held that power of transferring
cases on applications made by parties is judicial in nature. However, none of
these judgments were taken into consideration by the Court, while passing
the judgment dated 07.03.2022 and this is a manifest error of law on the face
of the judgment rendering the same liable to be reviewed/recalled. Reliance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 5 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Indian Charge Chrome
Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 67, where
the Supreme Court held that where a contention is urged by a party but there
is omission to consider the same, it amounts to a manifest error in the
judgment, calling for a review.
11. It was further contended that Rule 6(1) of Central Administrative
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (‘1987 Rules’) provides that an
application shall ordinarily be filed by the applicant before a Bench of the
Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted for the time being
or where cause of action, wholly or in part has arisen. Rule 6(2), however,
provides an exception and gives right to a person, who has ceased to be in
service by way of retirement, dismissal or termination to file an application
before a Bench within whose jurisdiction such person ordinarily resides at
the time of filing the application. This exception has been carved out for the
convenience of applicants, who are no longer in service and the rule cannot
be defeated or rendered redundant by transfer of the O.A. filed by the
Petitioner before the Kolkata Bench since he was a permanent resident of
Kolkata and had retired when he filed the O.A. The impugned order passed
by the Tribunal and erroneously upheld by this Court, infringes on a
valuable right available to the Petitioner under Rule 6(2) of 1987 Rules.
12. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the
Respondents opposed the review petition, both on maintainability and on
merits. It was urged that no ground has been raised in the petition calling for
review of the order within the limited parameters on which review can be
sought. The attempt is to re-argue the matter in the garb of the review
petition. Review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless an error
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 6 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
apparent is shown on the face of the record, the judgment or order cannot be
recalled. In N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria and Others, (2013) 15
SCC 534, the Supreme Court observed that no review can lie unless there is
mistake apparent on the face of the record and mistake apparent would mean
that the mistake is self-evident, needing no search or re-hearing. It was
argued that in the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the
judgment warranting a review. The matter was argued by Petitioner’s
counsel vehemently and at length and multiple written submissions were
also filed. All relevant points were considered before a view was taken by
the Court and it is settled that if the view adopted by the Court is a possible
view, a review cannot be sought on the ground that another view was
possible.
13. The ground that no pass over was granted by the Court for the Senior
Counsels engaged by the Petitioner to appear and argue the matter is not a
ground calling for review in law. Nothing prevented the Petitioner from
being represented by the Senior Counsel and there is no rule, which
mandates any Court to give a pass over as a matter of right. On a number of
occasions, Courts have denied pass overs for one reason or the other,
wherever pass over is not possible, as in the decisions in Hemant Jain v.
Sidharth Jaju & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10898 and Mohan Singh
Market & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13549.
14. Insofar as the argument that opportunity of filing objections/reply to
the petition was not granted, it was rightly held by this Court in the
judgment under review that perusal of the impugned order reflected that
Petitioner was duly represented by a team of counsels including a Senior
Counsel, who was given an opportunity to argue the matter and that Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 7 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
25 of 1985 Act does not mandate filing of a formal written reply but only
requires notice to the parties and opportunity of hearing and no infirmity can
be found with this observation calling for a review.
15. The main plank of the argument of the Petitioner in the review
petition is that power under Section 25 of 1985 Act is not administrative in
nature but is a decision making power on the judicial side. This is contrary
to the well settled law that power under Section 25 is administrative in
nature and this position is affirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision in
Sanjiv Chaturvedi (supra), which was taken into consideration by the Court
in the judgment dated 07.03.2022.
16. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the Review Petitioner and
learned ASG for the Respondents and examined their rival submissions.
17. Before proceeding further, it is important to delve on the scope of
jurisdiction in a review petition. It is settled that review proceedings are not
by way of an appeal and review is warranted only if there is an error
apparent on the face of the record. In the garb of review petition, a party
cannot be permitted to reargue the matter. In N. Anantha Reddy (supra), the
Supreme Court held that the review jurisdiction is extremely limited and
unless there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, the judgment
does not call for review and surely review jurisdiction is not an appeal in
disguise. In M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of
Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, the Supreme Court held that a party is not entitled
to seek a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing and a
fresh decision of the case. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case and finality of the judgment delivered by the
Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 8 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
mistake or grave error has crept in by judicial fallibility. It was reiterated
that an error apparent exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point,
it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of
them but where the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a
possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold
that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
18. Significantly, in S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic
Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464, the Supreme Court observed that an error
apparent is not one, which has to be fished out and searched and must be an
error of inadvertence. If the error is so apparent that without further
investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the
application, review will lie but in the guise of review, parties are not entitled
to re-hearing.
19. With this backdrop on the scope and ambit of review jurisdiction, we
may examine the grounds raised in the review petition by the Petitioner. The
ground that no pass over was granted cannot be a ground for review of the
judgement. It is not a matter of right to seek a pass over and moreover,
counsel for the Petitioner was heard at length, which is evident from a bare
reading of the judgement.
20. The argument that this Court had failed to appreciate that the Tribunal
did not give opportunity to file objections/reply to the petition, depriving the
Petitioner of effective opportunity to contest, is misconceived. Court took
note of the fact that Petitioner was duly represented by a team of counsels
including a Senior Counsel, who argued vociferously before the Tribunal, as
recorded in the order of the Tribunal. Court also reflected on the language of
Section 25 of 1985 Act, which does not require giving chance to the parties
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 9 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
to file a formal written reply and the only requirement is of a notice to the
parties and a hearing, which was done. There is thus no error apparent,
calling for review on this aspect.
21. The argument that Court erred in holding that power of the Chairman
under Section 25 is an administrative power and this amounts to error
apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment, is
equally misconceived. In the original judgment, Court considered the plain
language of Section 25 and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Sanjiv Chaturvedi (supra), concluded that the power of the Chairman of the
Tribunal is administrative in nature. In the said judgment, the Supreme
Court after examining Section 25 held in no uncertain terms that power
under the said Section to transfer cases from one Bench to another is
essentially an administrative power of the Chairman of the Tribunal and
such power is to be exercised on his own motion or on an application of any
of the parties after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as
may desire to be heard. It was also held that the Chairman may, on his own
motion, transfer any case pending before one Bench to another without
notice. Since a question involved in the case was whether the Chairman
exercising power under Section 25 to transfer proceedings from one Bench
to another, could have stayed proceeding before a two-Member Bench,
while sitting singly, it was held that the Chairman has no power to grant
interim stay of proceedings as such a power was conferred on the Tribunal
under Section 24 and that the Chairman exercising power under Section 25
does not function as the Tribunal. In light of this judgment, it is not open to
the Petitioner to contend that powers of the Chairman under Section 25 are
not administrative in nature and seek a re-hearing on this ground in the garb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 10 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
of a review petition. The judgment in Manju Varma (supra) relied upon by
the Petitioner is of no avail as the said case was not concerned with Section
25 of 1985 Act but paragraph 14 of United Provinces High Courts
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948 and it was in that context that Supreme Court
held that the Chief Justice was acting as a judicial authority with all
attributes of a Court and his order was amenable to correction under Article
136. Thus, this judgment has no relevance to the issue involved in the
present case and on the other hand the judgement in Sanjiv Chaturvedi
(supra), applies squarely as it deals with powers of the Chairman of the
Tribunal under Section 25 of 1985 Act, which was the issue raised in the
writ petition from which the present review petition emanates.
22. The judgement in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (Supra), on which heavy
reliance is placed by the Petitioner, does not aid the Petitioner. The legal
conundrum arising in the said case was the jurisdiction of Calcutta High
Court to entertain a challenge to order of Principal Bench of the Tribunal at
Delhi and this is captured in paragraph 1 of the judgment, which is extracted
hereunder for ready reference:-
“Whether the bundle of facts that constitute the cause of action for filing
an original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) and determinative of the place of its filing
would remain as the decisive factor in case such an application is
subsequently transferred from the Bench where it was filed to another
Bench of the Tribunal falling under the territorial jurisdiction of another
High Court, to ascertain the jurisdictional High Court to exercise the
power of judicial review qua the order of transfer passed by the
Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi in
exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act.”
23. The Appellant therein/Union of India assailed the judgment dated
29.10.2021 passed by Calcutta High Court in the case of the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 11 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
herein, whereby the High Court had set aside the order dated 22.10.2021
passed by the Tribunal in Transfer Petition transferring O.A. No. 1619/2021
filed by the Petitioner. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Supreme Court
observed that the Court was confining the consideration to the question as to
which was the jurisdictional High Court having power of judicial review and
the question was finally answered by placing reliance on the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261, holding that once the order impugned
in the writ petition was passed by Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, only the Delhi High Court will have
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the order and that
the Calcutta High Court had wrongly usurped the jurisdiction and
entertained the petition. Therefore, this judgment cannot apply to the
controversy raised in the petition before this Court.
24. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Charge
Chrome (supra) is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the legal
proposition that non-consideration of a relevant contention is an error
apparent. However, in the instant case, all contentions raised by the
Petitioner have been dealt with. As noticed above, the judgement in Manju
Varma (supra), did not apply even remotely to the controversy in question
in the writ petition and in so far as the judgement in Alapan Bandyopadhyay
(supra), is concerned, the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a challenge to the
orders/judgements of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The judgment in
Jitendra Singh (supra), does not deal with the powers of the Chairman
under Section 25 of the 1985 Act and is hence inapplicable to this case.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 12 of 13
Signing Date:20.02.2026
14:41:10
25. Insofar as the contention that Petitioner has a vested and a statutory
right to file an O.A. at the place of his residence by virtue of Rule 6(2) of
1987 Rules, being a retired person and this right cannot be taken away by
exercising power under Section 25 of 1985 Act is concerned, this Court has
taken a view in the original judgment that if this proposition is accepted
Section 25, which gives power to the Chairman to transfer matters will be
rendered redundant and sub-servient to Rule 6(2), which was not the intent
of the legislature while enacting Section 25. Section 25 by its plain reading
bestows administrative power to the Chairman and is neither regulated nor
controlled by any rule. Nothing has been shown by the Petitioner even
today, which warrants a different interpretation or view, calling for a review
of the judgement.
26. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to review the judgment dated
07.03.2022 and the review petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit.
27. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
FEBRUARY 19 , 2026/YA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 1028/2022 Page 13 of 13 Signing Date:20.02.2026 14:41:10
