Facts
The applicant, an officer transferred to Arunachal Pradesh, originally challenged a disciplinary memorandum dated 27.02.2023 in O.A. No. 681/2024
Source reference: para. 3On 07.05.2025, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings, ruling that the Ministry of Home Affairs lacked jurisdiction
Source reference: para. 4The Union of India challenged this in the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 14025/2025), which set aside the Tribunal’s order on 01.04.2026, holding that the initiation of proceedings was with jurisdiction and directing restoration of the inquiry
Source reference: para. 5The applicant subsequently filed the present Review Application (R.A.) on the grounds that the Tribunal had not yet adjudicated the merits of the disciplinary inquiry
Source reference: para. 6Issues
1. Whether the delay of 336 days in filing the Review Application should be condoned.
Source reference: para. 1-22. Whether the Tribunal can entertain a Review Application against an order that has already been quashed and set aside by a superior court (High Court).
Source reference: para. 7Law Applied
The court applied the doctrine of merger and the principles of judicial hierarchy governing review jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Source reference: para. 7once a lower court's order is quashed and substituted by a High Court judgment under Article 226/227, the lower court loses the competence to review its original (now non-existent) order unless specific liberty is granted by the superior court
Source reference: para. 7Reasoning
The Tribunal first addressed the procedural delay, finding the reasons stated in M.A. No. 2378/2026 sufficient to condone the 336-day lapse
Source reference: para. 2The Tribunal reasoned that because the High Court had already adjudicated the jurisdictional issue and directed the restoration of proceedings without granting the applicant "liberty" to return to the Tribunal for a review on merits, the Tribunal was functus officio regarding that specific order
Source reference: para. 7The proper recourse for the applicant, as analyzed by the Bench, is to approach the High Court for clarification or further proceedings rather than seeking a review of a vacated order
Source reference: para. 7Holding
The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay but dismissed the Review Application. It held that it cannot entertain a review of an order that has been set aside by the High Court in the absence of specific leave from the superior court
The applicant was granted liberty to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi through appropriate proceedings
Source reference: para. 7Original Court PDF
RINKU DHUGGAvsHOME AFFAIRS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in