RAILWAY vs C S JHA on 13 October 2026

O R D E R

[By Circulation] [Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)] This Review Application has been filed by the Union of India & Ors. (respondents in OA) seeking review of the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

-2- RA Diary No. 1417/2026 with MA No. 523/2026

050/00510/2017 (whereby the OA was allowed) in pursuance of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Patna vide order dated 20.07.2026 passed in CWJC No. 5248 of 2026. The relevant part of order of Hon’ble High Court dated 20.07.2026 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “ 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be granted liberty to approach the Ld. CAT for review of the said order dated 16.01.2026, inasmuch as the Ld. CAT has proceeded on a wrong premise to the effect that the order of punishment passed by the petitioners against the sole respondent is not a major penalty but a minor penalty whereas the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of three months without cumulative effect falls under the definition of major penalty which has been defined under Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. It is thus submitted that if the Ld. CAT would have considered the order of punishment to be having the effect of major penalty, the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 directing the sole respondent to be promoted in the Higher Administrative Grade (Non Functional) with effect from 29.07.2015 would not have been passed.

3. Having regard to the limited submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we deem fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate review petition before the Ld. CAT for review of the order dated 16.01.2026 passed in OA No. 050/00510/2017.

4. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.”

2. An MA bearing No. 050/00523/2026 has also been filed by the applicants of this R.A. (Respondents of the O.A. No. 510/2017) for condonation of delay in filing the review application.

3. Before we consider the review application, we feel it necessary to deal with the MA filed for condonation of delay. It is contended by the applicants of the R.A. in their MA that order of this Tribunal dated 16.01.2026 was challenged earlier by them before the Hon’ble High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 5248 of 2026 which was disposed of

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

-3- RA Diary No. 1417/2026 with MA No. 523/2026

vide order dated 20.07.2026 granting liberty to file review petition before this Tribunal as mentioned above. The applicants have prayed for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the RA on the ground of delay on account of completion of the official and legal formalities.

4. We have gone through the MA for condonation of delay. The reasons given for condonation of delay of 19 days are convincing warranting such condonation of delay. Accordingly, The MA filed for condonation of delay in filing the instant RA is allowed.

5. Now we proceed to deal with the review application on merit. On perusal of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court, we find that the review applicants seek to prefer the instant review on the ground that the CAT has proceeded on a wrong premise to the effect that the order of punishment passed by the petitioners against the sole respondent (applicant of the O.A. No. 510/2017) is not a major penalty but a minor penalty whereas the penalty of reduction of pay two stages for a period of three months without cumulative effect falls under the definition of major penalty which has been defined under Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called Rules).

6. For better appreciation of the case, it is relevant to quote the Rule 6 (iii)(b), Rule 6 (iv) which are under minor penalty and Rule 6(v) which is under major penalty as per the said Rules.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

-4- RA Diary No. 1417/2026 with MA No. 523/2026

Rule 6.Minor Penalties ……………………………

(iii) (b) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.

(iv) Withholding of increments of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period this will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Major Penalties

(v) ***[Save as otherwise provided for in clause (iii-b) reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period , the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.

7. It is contended by the RA applicants that this Tribunal proceeded on a fundamental error apparent on the face of the record by concluding in Paragraph 19(iii) of the order in aforesaid O.A., that the penalty of “Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of three months without cumulative effect” imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 07.07.2015 is a Minor Penalty under Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, whereas the same is categorically classified as a Major Penalty under the statutory rules.

8. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that this Tribunal has categorically mentioned in Para 19(iii) of its order dated 16.01.2026 that “…….This Tribunal has perused the Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and finds that actually this penalty is listed as minor penalty and not a major penalty as contended by the respondents in their written statement.”

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

-5- RA Diary No. 1417/2026 with MA No. 523/2026

9. The RA applicants are mainly harping on Rule 6(v) as mentioned above which according to them has categorically classified the imposed penalty on the applicant as a major penalty and the Tribunal is treating the same as minor penalty. As such there is an error apparent on the face of record, as the penalty order dated 07.07.2015 explicitly shows a reduction by two stages, which directly invokes the major penalty provision of the statutory rules.

10. The penalty inflicted upon the applicant as reflected from the letter of the respondents of the said O.A. dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure-A/2 of the said O.A.) was by way of “reduction of pay by two stages for a period of three months, with the further directions that on expiry of the said period of reduction, it will not have the effect of postponing future increments (NCE)”. Here NCE stands for Non-Cumulative Effect.

11. We have perused the relevant rules of the R.S. (D&A) Rules, 1968 and found that in Rule 6(v) there is no categorical mention of reduction of two stages. This is being reproduced again: “6 (v) ***[Save as otherwise provided for in clause (iii-b) reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period , the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay”. Besides, for example, if we put reduction of pay by two stages for a period of three months only with non-cumulative effect, then monetary translation of this penalty will be much lower than the

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

-6- RA Diary No. 1417/2026 with MA No. 523/2026

permissible reduction of pay by one stage for three years with no postponement of future increments. Hence, this Tribunal was correct in interpreting this grey area and treating it as a minor penalty. Thus, the applicant of the O.A was found to be eligible for the relief that was prayed for in the O.A.

12. The power of the Tribunal is not confined to interpreting the service rules as they stand; it can also examine their constitutional validity, subject to the limitations laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the landmark Seven Judges Bench judgment in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. In this, seven-Judge Constitution Bench held that tribunals can test the vires of those statutory provisions regarding the service matter that it is authorised to adjudicate including its subordinate legislation, including rules. The exception is that a tribunal cannot declare its own parent statute (Administrative Tribunal Act and its rules) unconstitutional. Tribunal’s decisions on vires remain subject to judicial review by the jurisdictional High Court.

13. In view of the above dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the interpretation of this Tribunal to the grey area as mentioned above holds good. Accordingly, we find there is no error of law in the order of the Tribunal.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

-7- RA Diary No. 1417/2026 with MA No. 523/2026

14. The respondents have tried to insert a word in the Rules (“two stages” that does not find a mention in the rule) for which they have no authority. They cannot re-write the statute/rules. So far as interpretation of the rule is concerned, that is sought by the applicants of this MA with the R.A. in their Paragraph 7, only the judicial forum has got the authority to do so. This power is not assigned to the applicants of this R.A. The Tribunal has exercised its authority of this interpretation of the grey area, duly conferred on it by the Seven Judge Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L. Chandrakumar (supra).

15. Further, the scope of review is very limited only to the extent of correcting self-evident errors. The present review application amounts to a request for re-hearing of the case by changing the very basis of the order, which is not permissible in the light of ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Kumar Sengupta [2008(8) SCC 612] wherein Hon’ble Court has held as under:- “ The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are :

(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

-8- RA Diary No. 1417/2026 with MA No. 523/2026

(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).

(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.

(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.

(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.

(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”

16. Moreover, in the review, the Tribunal cannot go into its detailed reasoning and replace it with a new reasoning. This would amount to sitting in appeal over our own order, which is not permitted under law. In conclusion, since there is no apparent error on the face of record either of fact or of law, the RA is dismissed by circulation.

[Kumar Rajesh Chandra]

Administrative Member

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, Member [J]

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI