MUKESH KUMAR MEENA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Judgment / Order 27/10/2021 (PER HON’BLE BISHNOI,J.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 07.05.2021 passed by learned Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the application P.T./68/2021 preferred on behalf of respondent-department has been allowed and O.A. No.14/2021 (Uploaded on 27/10/2021 at 02:01:49 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:07:09 AM) (2 of 11) [CW-7434/2021] pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench has been ordered to be transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench with a direction to club it with O.As. No.1031/2017 and 1030/2017 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as an Inspector in Income Tax Department and was posted in the Office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh. A memorandum of charge was issued by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh and based on the said memorandum of charge, a departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarnagar passed an order on 12.09.2019 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, however, when the appeal was not decided, the petitioner preferred Original Application No.14/2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, under whose jurisdiction, the petitioner is at present residing. The CAT, Jodhpur on 12.01.2021 directed to register the O.A., admitted the same and issued notices to the respondents. The next date in the O.A. was fixed as 23.02.2021 and on the date fixed, counsel for the respondents put his appearance and sought four weeks’ time to file detailed counter affidavit, which was granted and the next date in the matter was fixed as 08.04.2021. In between, the respondents filed a transfer application under Section 25 of the Central Administrative Act, 1985 before (Uploaded on 27/10/2021 at 02:01:49 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:07:09 AM) (3 of 11) [CW-7434/2021] Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Principal Bench’) on 23.03.2021 seeking transfer of O.A. No.14/2021 filed on behalf of the petitioner before the CAT, Jodhpur Bench on the ground that three Income Tax Inspectors involved in the same incident, for which memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner, which resulted into his removal from the service, have also been terminated and the said Inspectors have filed separate O.As., two before the CAT, Allahabad Bench and one before CAT, Lucknow Bench and the same are pending. It is urged that because same issue is pending before the various Benches of Tribunal and in order to avoid conflicting views of the various Benches, the O.A. filed by the petitioner be transferred to CAT, Allahabad Bench. It appears that after filing of the transfer application on 23.03.2021, one Misc. Application has also been filed by the respondents before the Principal Bench on 05.05.2021 levelling allegations against the CAT, Jodhpur regarding its prejudicial attitude while entertaining O.A. preferred on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed his response to the transfer application before the Principal Bench on 05.05.2021. The learned Chairman of the Principal Bench has passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2021, transferred the O.A. No.14/2021 to CAT, Allahabad Bench from CAT, Jodhpur Bench and also ordered for clubbing it with O.A. Nos. 1031/2017 and 1030/2017 pending at CAT, Allahabad Bench. Assailing the impugned order dated 07.05.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that learned Chairman of the Principal Bench has grossly erred in transferring the O.A. preferred by the petitioner from CAT, Jodhpur Bench to (Uploaded on 27/10/2021 at 02:01:49 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:07:09 AM) (4 of 11) [CW-7434/2021] CAT, Allahabad Bench solely on the ground that two similar cases are pending before the CAT, Allahabad Bench. It is argued that the cases pending before the CAT, Allhabad Bench are distinguishable from the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners in those cases were the temporary employees and were removed without there being any enquiry, whereas the petitioner has been terminated after holding full fledged enquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is further submitted that the petitioners before the CAT, Allahabad Bench were the temporary employees and they were removed without assigning any reason or without holding any enquiry and as such their cases cannot be equated with the case of the petitioner, who was a permanent employee and was removed from service as punishment after disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, precedence has been given to the convenience of the Government servants for filing the petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1987’) allows a Government servant, who has retired or terminated from the Government service, to file a petition with the Registrar of the Bench, where such person is residing at the time of filing of the petition. It is contended that the petitioner at the time of filing O.A. and at present is residing within territorial jurisdiction of CAT, Jodhpur and with the transfer of his O.A. from CAT, Jodhpur to CAT, Allahabad, he will face hardship. It is submitted that the petitioner is not in employment and his financial position is not so good to engage another advocate at Allahabad. Apart from all (Uploaded on 27/10/2021 at 02:01:49 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:07:09 AM) (5 of 11) [CW-7434/2021] inconvenience of distance, if he is forced to fight a litigation far away from from his residence, he will suffer irreparable loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that writ petition of the petitioner may be allowed and the impugned order may kindly be set aside. Per contra, Mr Sunil Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents have raised several preliminary objections. The principal preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that this writ petition is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the order impugned is passed by the learned Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and the same can only be challenged before the Delhi High Court. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble India, 1997 SCC (L& S) 577. It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the order impugned can be challenged before this Court, then also, the writ petition against the impugned order is not maintainable before the Division Bench and the petitioner has to file a writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court only. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned Chairman of the Principal Bench had not committed any illegality in passing of the impugned order dated 07.05.2021 as similar matters were pending before the CAT, Allahabad Bench and to avoid conflicting views, the O.A. preferred by the petitioner has rightly been ordered to be transferred to CAT, Allahabad Bench. (Uploaded on 27/10/2021 at 02:01:49 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:07:09 AM) (6 of 11) [CW-7434/2021] Learned counsel Mr Bhandari has further contended that the respondents have demonstrated before the learned Chairman of the Principal Bench about the prejudicial attitude of the CAT, Jodhpur while entertaining the O.A. filed by the petitioner and the learned Chairman, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly ordered for transfer of the O.A. filed by the petitioner from CAT, Jodhpur Bench to CAT, Allahabad Bench and the said order is not liable to be interfered with and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. First of all we deal with the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1987 provides that persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner at the time of filing O.A. and at present is residing within territorial jurisdiction of CAT, Jodhpur Bench. Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1985’) confers powers upon Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another. Section 25 of the Act of 1985 is reproduced hereunder:

“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, (Uploaded on 27/10/2021 at 02:01:49 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:07:09 AM) (7 of 11) [CW-7434/2021] or on his own motion without such notice, the Chairman may transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench.” As per the above provision, learned Chairman of the Principal Bench can transfer any case pending before one Bench to any other Bench either on application by any of the parties or on his own motion, however, if any party seeks transfer, then notice is required to be given to other party and if the Chairman decides to transfer any case from one Bench to another on his own motion, no notice is required to be given to the person, who has filed O.A. We are of the view that the power conferred upon the Chairman of CAT of transferring a case from one Bench to another is essentially an administrative power because the learned Chairman does not function as a tribunal while entertaining any application seeking transfer of a case from one Bench to another. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Institute of 25 of the Act of 1985 has held as under:

“58. The power under Section 25 of the Act to transfer cases from one Bench to another is essentially an administrative power of the Chairman of CAT. Such power is to be exercised by the Chairman on his own motion or on the application of any of the parties after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard. The Chairman may, on his motion, transfer any case pending before one Bench to another without notice. 59……….. (Uploaded on 27/10/2021 at 02:01:49 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:07:09 AM) (8 of 11) [CW-7434/2021] 60………..