The CAT's principal bench through its order dated December 4, 2020 had allowed the Centre's plea for transfer of the case to Delhi.
The bench added, “It will also necessitate that the petitioner should take leave from his work, thereby, preventing him from discharging his official duties.
The court observed that a bare perusal of the order clearly reveals that the tribunal has failed to consider the hardship caused to the petitioner.
Bandopadhyay had challenged in the high court CAT’s order of transferring his case of alleged misconduct to Delhi.
Setting aside the CAT order, the high court directed that the hearing of the case would be conducted at CAT’s Kolkata unit.
The division bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice KR Mohapatra said the CAT has rightly noticed that there is a prescribed percentage of reservation for OBC, SC and ST.
A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and Manish Pitale noted that the relief claimed in the petition is related to service matters and hence the jurisdiction lies with the CAT.
IAS officer B Sharath had questioned appointment of Rohini Sindhuri
The member recused himself citing that his 'relative counsels' might have been appeared for respondents in the matter and he 'might' have appeared with them for those respondents.
Chaturvedi had in February last year filed a case before the tribunal's Nainital bench, challenging the Centre's 360-degree appraisal system.