Supreme Court Dismisses Transfer Plea of Ex-IPS Officer Seeking Tribunal Shift

The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a plea by former IPS officer Rajnish Kumar Rai seeking the transfer of his case from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad to the CAT Ahmedabad Bench. The case, Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors., raised questions on judicial propriety, territorial jurisdiction, and the discretion of courts in granting case transfers.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Rajnish Kumar Rai, a retired IPS officer, had initially filed a service-related case before the Hyderabad Bench of the CAT. As the proceedings reached their final hearing, the petitioner sought a transfer to the Ahmedabad Bench, citing convenience and personal hardship. The Principal Bench of CAT rejected this request on February 4, 2022.

The petitioner then approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection. However, the High Court dismissed the plea on April 20, 2022, relying on the precedent set in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, which outlined the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts over CAT orders. Dissatisfied, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion to transfer the case to Ahmedabad.
Whether the Hyderabad Bench of CAT had proper jurisdiction over the matter.
Whether judicial propriety allows a deviation from the Alapan Bandyopadhyay ruling.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner contended:

The Ahmedabad Bench of CAT also had jurisdiction over the case, given his post-retirement residence in Gujarat.
The continued proceedings in Hyderabad caused undue hardship and inconvenience.
The Supreme Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer the case.

Arguments by the Respondents

The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, countered:

The petitioner himself had filed the case in Hyderabad, indicating acceptance of jurisdiction.
Allowing the transfer would set a precedent for forum shopping.
The case was at the final hearing stage, and shifting it now would cause unnecessary delays.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Judicial Propriety and Precedent

The Court noted that the Alapan Bandyopadhyay ruling had already established the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in reviewing CAT orders. It stated:

“Judicial propriety does not permit ignoring the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench unless a larger Bench decides otherwise.”

2. Justification for Transfer

The Court examined whether the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient grounds for transfer and held:

“The matter is at its final stage in Hyderabad, and no exceptional reason justifies a shift to Ahmedabad.”

3. Forum Shopping Concerns

The Court also emphasized that litigants should not be allowed to switch tribunals at their convenience. It observed:

“Permitting such a transfer would open the floodgates to forum shopping, leading to unnecessary delays in judicial proceedings.”

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating:

The Hyderabad Bench of CAT had proper jurisdiction, and the petitioner voluntarily approached it.
The case was already at the final hearing stage, making a transfer unnecessary.
The request for transfer lacked sufficient legal grounds.

The Court concluded:

“The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

Reinforces Judicial Discipline: The Court reaffirmed that coordinate Bench rulings must be followed until overruled by a larger Bench.
Discourages Forum Shopping: The judgment sets a precedent against allowing transfers based on convenience alone.
Preserves Tribunal Efficiency: The ruling ensures that cases nearing completion are not unnecessarily delayed by jurisdictional shifts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors. upholds the principle that judicial transfers should be based on legal necessity rather than personal preference. By dismissing the petition, the Court has reinforced consistency in territorial jurisdiction and prevented misuse of transfer provisions.

Petitioner Name: Rajnish Kumar Rai.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Place Of Incident: Hyderabad, Telangana.
Judgment Date: 06-09-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: rajnish-kumar-rai-vs-union-of-india-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-09-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in Judgment by Bela M. Trivedi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category