RAILWAY vs C S JHA

-1- RA Diary No. 1417/2026 with MA No. 523/2026


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
RA Diary No. 1417/2026 (RA No. 11/2026)
with
MA/050/00523/2026
[Arising out of OA/050/00510/2017]

Date of Order: 13.10.2026
C O R A M
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The Union of India through the Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.

2. The Member (Traction and Rolling Stock), Railway Board, Ministry
of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
4. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Dighi
Kalan, P.S.- Hajipur, District-Vaishali, Bihar- 844101.

5. The Director (Establishment)/Spl., Railway Board, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
.......Applicants/Respondents in OA
- Versus-
Chandra Shekhar Jha, S/o Later Madhukant Jha, Ex-Chief Electrical Service
Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Resident of Flat No. 404, Lakhan
Enclave, Sharma Path, Rukunpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014 (Bihar).
……..Respondent/Applicant in OA

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.
Digitally signed by
SURYARO
SURYAROOP
KABI
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
Digitally signed by
SURYARO
SURYAROOP
KABI
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.
Digitally signed by
SURYARO
SURYAROOP
KABI
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.”
Digitally signed by
SURYARO
SURYAROOP
KABI
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
Digitally signed by
SURYARO
SURYAROOP
KABI
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.
Digitally signed by
SURYARO
SURYAROOP
KABI
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.
Digitally signed by
SURYARO
SURYAROOP
KABI
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]
Digitally signed by
SURYARO
SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI