Review following acquittal must be decided by the authority that passed the last order.

The petitioner, a Commercial Clerk posted at Sakti, was implicated in a criminal case under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989, concerning the alleged issuance of four railway tickets to touts after accepting ₹800 as illegal commission.

Parallel departmental proceedings were initiated, and the charge was found proved. The disciplinary authority imposed reduction of pay by three stages, from ₹31,900 to ₹29,200, with cumulative and immediate effect for five years, by order dated 13.12.2018.

Before the disciplinary punishment was imposed, the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case on 26.11.2018, the criminal court finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The petitioner thereafter sought review of the punishment under Rule 19 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, relying on paragraph 18 of Master Circular No. 67. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager rejected the request on 26.05.2020, holding that the acquittal did not warrant interference with the departmental punishment.

In revision, the punishment was reduced from five years to four years, but the finding of misconduct was maintained, by order dated 10.06.2021. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur dismissed the petitioner’s Original Application No. 203/32/2022 by order dated 25.02.2026. The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.

Whether the review application based on the petitioner’s acquittal was considered by the authority competent under paragraph 18 of Master Circular No. 67?

Whether the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case, involving substantially the same factual allegations and evidence, required reconsideration of the departmental punishment under paragraph 18 of Master Circular No. 67?

Whether the orders of the reviewing and revisional authorities, and consequently the CAT’s order, could be sustained when the review was exercised by an authority lacking jurisdiction?

The Court applied Rule 19 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, concerning departmental consideration of criminal-court outcomes, and paragraph 18 of Master Circular No. 67, which provides that departmental proceedings ordinarily proceed independently of criminal proceedings; however, where the facts, circumstances and charges are exactly identical and the employee is acquitted on merits, the departmental case may be reviewed, and such review must be undertaken by the authority that passed the last order.

Applying the principle in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, the Court held that where power is prescribed to be exercised in a particular manner, it must be exercised in that manner and not otherwise.

Relying on Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175, the Court held that expressions such as “benefit of doubt” or “honourable acquittal” are not determinative; the substance of the criminal judgment must be examined to ascertain whether the acquittal was on merits.

The Court also applied the limited scope of judicial review over departmental findings, as stated in Union of India v. Subrath Nath, Civil Appeal Nos. 7939–7940 of 2022, while recognising interference where principles of natural justice or applicable statutory rules are violated.

The Court found that the criminal and departmental proceedings arose from the same transaction: the alleged issuance of four PNR tickets to touts and acceptance of ₹800 as illegal commission.

The criminal court had considered the prosecution evidence, including the evidence of ten witnesses, and acquitted the petitioner after finding that the charge was not proved; therefore, the reviewing authority was required to examine the substance of that judgment rather than rely mechanically on the fact that the acquittal was not described as “honourable”.

However, the decisive defect was jurisdictional. Paragraph 18 of Master Circular No. 67 required the review to be undertaken by the authority that passed the last order. Since the punishment order dated 13.12.2018 had been passed by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, who acted on the petitioner’s review application, lacked authority to exercise the paragraph 18 review power.

The application dated 17.02.2020 was expressly styled as a petition for review, and the receiving authority ought to have forwarded it to the competent disciplinary authority.

As the review order was without jurisdiction, the subsequent revisional order and the CAT’s decision, which failed to consider this foundational defect, could not stand.

It held that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager was not the authority competent to review the punishment under paragraph 18 of Master Circular No. 67.

The matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority—being the authority that passed the punishment order—for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s review application dated 17.02.2020 in accordance with law and paragraph 18 of the Master Circular.

No order as to costs was made.