Tribunal cannot interfere with disciplinary authority's findings absent perversity or natural justice violation.

The applicant, L.V. Kachhap, challenged disciplinary orders stemming from charges that he issued PNR tickets to touts and accepted illegal money on October 29, 2014.

A charge memorandum was issued on March 16, 2015, (Annexure A-4) and a case was registered under Section 143 of the Railway Act (1989).

An inquiry was conducted, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of reduction by three stages (from Rs. 31900/- to Rs. 29200/-) for five years with cumulative effect via order dated December 13, 2018 (Annexure A-2).

Meanwhile, the Special Railway Magistrate acquitted the applicant of the criminal charges on November 26, 2018 (Annexure A-7).

The Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment on May 26, 2020 (Annexure A-3).

The applicant then filed a revision petition (dated August 5, 2020) and the Revisionary Authority partly allowed it on June 10, 2021 (Annexure A-1), reducing the punishment period to four years with immediate effect and cumulative impact on future increments.

The applicant contended that the Appellate Authority had wrongly exercised the powers of the Revisionary Authority, thereby depriving him of a legal remedy.

He also argued that his acquittal in the criminal case should lead to a review of the departmental punishment, citing Master Circular No. 67 and Railway Board's letter No. E(D&A) RG 6-36 dated June 6, 1974.

Whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent punishment should have been overturned or reviewed given the applicant's acquittal in parallel criminal proceedings.

Whether the Appellate Authority improperly assumed the role of the Reviewing Authority, thereby prejudicing the applicant's legal remedies.

Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the disciplinary actions taken by the railway authorities.

The Tribunal applied the principle that departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings, with different ingredients of misconduct and standards of proof, as per Para 18 of Master Circular No. 67.

It further relied on Railway Board's letter No. E(D&A) 95 RG 6-4 dated June 7, 1995 (RBE 54/1995), which states that if departmental charges are identical to criminal charges and the employee is acquitted on merits, the departmental case can be reviewed by the authority who passed the last orders.

The Tribunal also acknowledged judicial restraint in interfering with disciplinary matters, citing Supreme Court judgments like *Union of India Vs. Parma Nanda* (1989) 2 SCC 177, which emphasizes that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is not appellate and it cannot substitute its discretion for that of the competent authority.

The Tribunal also acknowledged *P. Gunasekaran* (2015 2 SCC 610) which specifies the limited grounds for High Court/Tribunal intervention in disciplinary matters, such as procedural errors or violation of natural justice, but not re-appreciation of evidence or proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.

The Tribunal noted that the departmental and criminal proceedings were initiated simultaneously but were not interdependent, and the articles of charges were distinct (disciplinary action under Railway Service Conduct Rules 1966 vs. criminal under Section 143 of the Railway Act 1989).

Therefore, the outcome of the criminal case did not automatically dictate the departmental proceedings.

Regarding the review process, the Tribunal found that the Revisionary Authority had taken a lenient view by modifying the punishment after considering the criminal acquittal, which demonstrated adherence to RBE 54/1995.

The argument that the Appellate Authority assumed the role of the Reviewing Authority was dismissed because the applicant had already exhausted his departmental remedies by filing a revision petition, and the Revisionary Authority had indeed modified the order.

The Tribunal emphasized that its role is not to act as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings, but to ensure due process and natural justice, which it found were complied with in this case.

It held that the departmental proceedings adhered to legal principles and natural justice, and the Revisionary Authority had appropriately exercised its powers by modifying the punishment.

Therefore, there was no scope for the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary actions taken by the Railway authorities.