A two-stage pay reduction for three months without cumulative effect is a minor penalty.

The respondent had been imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for three months, without cumulative effect, under an order dated 7 July 2015.

In OA No. 050/00510/2017, the Tribunal allowed his claim, holding that the penalty was a minor penalty and directing his promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade (Non-Functional) from 29 July 2015.

The Union of India and other respondents challenged that order before the Patna High Court.

The High Court granted them liberty to seek review, on the stated ground that the penalty was a major penalty under Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

The applicants then sought condonation of a 19-day delay and review of the Tribunal’s order.

1. Whether the 19-day delay in filing the review application should be condoned.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s classification of the penalty as minor, and its consequent order allowing the OA, disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Rule 6(iii)(b) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 classifies as a minor penalty a reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for up to three years, without cumulative effect and without adversely affecting pension; Rule 6(v), subject to clause (iii)(b), addresses reduction to a lower stage for a specified period and is listed among major penalties.

Under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Tribunal’s review power is analogous to a civil court’s power under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and is confined to the grounds stated there; an error requiring a long process of reasoning is not an error apparent, and review cannot be used to correct an allegedly erroneous decision or rehear the case.

The Tribunal also referred to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, for the proposition that tribunals may examine the validity of statutory provisions and subordinate legislation within their jurisdiction, subject to judicial review by the High Court.

The Tribunal accepted the explanation for the 19-day delay, noting that the applicants had first approached the High Court and then filed the review pursuant to the liberty granted there.

On the merits, it observed that Rule 6(v) did not expressly specify a two-stage reduction and considered that a three-month reduction by two stages, without cumulative effect, had a lesser monetary impact than a reduction by one stage for three years without postponement of future increments.

It therefore maintained its original interpretation that the penalty was minor and rejected the applicants’ contention that the original decision contained an apparent error.

It further held that the review application sought reconsideration of the basis of the original order, which was beyond the limited scope of review under the principles in Kamal Kumar Sengupta.

The Tribunal dismissed the review application by circulation, holding that no apparent error of fact or law had been established.

The order allowing the OA therefore remained undisturbed.