New Delhi: The bench said that it was a law that was resolved by the constitutional bench whose decisions about the court would submit to supervision in front of the high court division bench in it which was the jurisdiction of the tribunal falls and was not permitted to make further construction.
on the problem.
The center has challenged HC’s command.
Bandyopadhyay has issued a notification of the show for allegedly abstaining from the meeting held by the Prime Minister at Kalaikunda in May last year.
On May 31, the last day of Bandyopadhyay’s tenure, he was directed to come to Delhi to join the Central Government Service.
However, he retired on the same day without going to Delhi.
The central government began the disciplinary process against bandyopadhyay and he approached Kolkata Bench of paint.
This case was transferred by the chairman to the principal bench in Delhi, which was set aside by HC.
“In the circumstances, based on our conclusion, the revenge assessment and the final commands passed by the High Court at Calcutta will be held as one that passes without jurisdiction and hence, it is AB Initio Void.
Therefore, it was set aside.
However, the petition was submitted at Front of the High Court at Calcutta, however, with freedom to the applicant there / respondents here to attack the same before the jurisdiction high court, if so suggested, “Bench Bench said.
HC, as possible Plea Bandyopadhyay and canceled the transfer of the case, has said: “The entire modus operandi was adopted by the Union of India smelling of Fide Mala, it was unfortunate that the main bench the cat maintained the effort by the effort by.
Passing the transfer sequence that will be reduced, Thus paying respect for the Dictate of Union of India.
“Referring to HC observations, the Apex Court said that there was no extraordinary foundation to make scathing and underestimated comments and observations of the principal’s bench.
Without Ground for High Court to Make Statement Description: SC
