State of Bihar v. Amit Lodha, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6387

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Sunday, November 19, 2023

Printed For: Shubhanshi Phogat, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 SCC OnLine Del 6387
In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(BEFORE V. KAMESWAR RAO AND ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, JJ.)
W.P.(C) 6326/2023, CM Appl. 24856/2023

State of Bihar and Others … Petitioners;
Versus
Amit Lodha and Others … Respondents.
And
W.P.(C) 7341/2023, CM APPL. 28535/2023
State of Bihar and Others … Petitioners;
Versus
Amit Lodha and Others … Respondents.
W.P.(C) 6326/2023, CM Appl. 24856/2023, W.P.(C) 7341/2023
and CM APPL. 28535/2023
Decided on October 9, 2023
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Azmat H. Amanullah, ASC with Mr. Hardik Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. S. Sunil, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Ripu Daman Bharadwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, GP for
R-2 & R-3/UOI
Mr. Azmat H. Amanullah, ASC with Mr. Hardik Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. S. Sunil, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Ripu Daman Bharadwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, GP for
R-2 & R-3/UOI
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.:— 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 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 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 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
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 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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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-
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
Petitions before the Chairman of the Tribunal on 3rd 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
39. Dismissed as infructuous.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.

State of Bihar v. Amit Lodha, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6387

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of Bihar v. Amit Lodha, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6387

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of Bihar v. Amit Lodha, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6387

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Sunday, November 19, 2023

2023 SCC OnLine Del 6387

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

W.P.(C) 6326/2023, CM Appl. 24856/2023

3. On July 12, 2022, a decision was taken by the petitioners vide

in performance of duty cannot be construed as misconduct.

petitioner's prayer for transfer of OA No. 860/2022 pending

Department of Home, Patna, operates, has its office in Delhi, the

O.As. To buttress his arguments, he has referred to the judgment of the

it shall be appropriate that the matter is transferred to the Principal

introduces fairness in administrative actions and helps minimise and

to support his case.

You might also like