CAT - ['Delhi']

Review Application Not Maintainable Following Quashing of Original Order by High Court Without Liberty to Reappear.

RINKU DHUGGA vs HOME AFFAIRS

CAT - ['Delhi']JUDGMENT: May 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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. 3

On 07.05.2025, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings, ruling that the Ministry of Home Affairs lacked jurisdiction

Source reference: para. 4

The 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. 5

The 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. 6
02

Issues

1. Whether the delay of 336 days in filing the Review Application should be condoned.

Source reference: para. 1-2

2. 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. 7
03

Law 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. 7

once 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. 7
04

Reasoning

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. 2

The 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. 7

The 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. 7
05

Holding

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. 7
CAT - ['Delhi']

Original Court PDF

RINKU DHUGGAvsHOME AFFAIRS

CAT - ['Delhi'] · May 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment