1 CGHC010292862026 2026:CGHC:36739-DB AFR Judgment Reserved on : 31.07.2026 Judgment Delivered on : 18.08.2026 Judgment Uploaded on : 18.08.2026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5743 of 2026 L V Kachhap S/o Late S Kachhap Aged About 38 Years (Presently 43 Years) Presently Working As Sr. C.C./ P.S.R.S./ S.D.G./ S.E.C.R./ S.J.Q. R/o Tarbahar Indira Naka District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through General Manager, South East Central Railway, New G M Building, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495004 2 - Additional Divisional Railway Manager South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004 3 - Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager Bilaspur Division, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004 4 - Divisional Commercial Manager Bilaspur Division, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.V. Shridhar, Advocate For Respondents/UOI : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG 2 DIVISION BENCH Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Parth Prateem Sahu, J. CAV Order 1. Petitioner by way of this writ petition has questioned the legality and sustainability of the impugned order dated 25th February, 2026 (Annexure P/1) in O.A. No. 203/32/2022 passed by the learned Central Administration Tribunal, Jabalpur, M.P., whereby the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner while working as Commercial Clerk and being posted at Sakti, Chhattisgarh has been implicated in a criminal case bearing case no. 1942/2014 registered under Section 143 of the Railway Act, 1989. Based on the said criminal case a charge memo was issued to petitioner by the disciplinary authority and after conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, charges leveled against the petitioner was found to be proved and he was inflicted with a punishment of reduction in pay by three stages below i.e. from Rs. 31900/- to Rs. 29200/- vide impugned order dated 13.12.2018 with cumulative and immediate effect for a period of five years. The order of punishment was put to challenge by the petitioner under Rule 19 of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968, for its review based on the order of acquittal passed by the Special Railway Magistrate, Bilaspur in criminal case no. RA/1715/2015 wherein the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges leveled against 3 him. However, the review application submitted by petitioner came to be dismissed by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur and the competent authority confirming the punishment and the review petition was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2020. Against the order dated 26.05.2020 petitioner preferred a revision before the ADRM/SECR/BSP and the revisional authority upholding with the findings that the charges leveled against the petitioner was found to be proved had partly allowed the revision and reduced the punishment from reduction in pay by three stages with cumulative effect from five years to reduction in pay by three stages from Rs. 31,900/- to Rs. 29,200/- for a period of four years. The order of revisional authority was put to challenge by an application bearing no. 203/32/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short “CAT”) which too came to be dismissed by an impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for review submitted by the petitioner after his acquittal from the criminal charges registered against him in a criminal case was not considered in an appropriate manner. In the case at hand, the charges leveled in the criminal case and the charges leveled in the disciplinary proceedings as also the witnesses examined are one and the same and, hence, if the petitioner is acquitted in criminal case the reviewing authority ought to have reviewed the order of punishment, in accordance with the para no. 18 of the Master Circular No. 67. He further submits that while conducting the inquiry proceedings, principles of natural 4 justice has not been followed as the petitioner was not provided with the relevant documents which are relied upon, during the inquiry proceedings. He further submits that the authority has passed the order of punishment after acquittal by the Criminal Court in terms of Master Circular No. 67, however, in the facts of the case Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur was not the authority and could not have reviewed the order. He next submits that according to para no. 18 of the Master Circular No. 67, the jurisdiction of review is upon the authority who passed the order in the last. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of punishment was passed by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur, however, the review application was considered and decided by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (Co-ord), Bilaspur and the competent authority. 4. He lastly submits that as the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case and therefore, the reviewing authority ought to have set aside the order of punishment. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of G.M. Tank V. State of Gujurat reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 and Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. Reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for Union of India would support the impugned judgment and further submits that the learned CAT 5 has examined all the aspects of the case and dismissed the original application which does not call for any interference. He also submits that the acquittal in criminal case will not be a ground for quashing of the punishment. More so, when the disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment after proper appreciation of the material available in the inquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer. He submits that the authority before whom the application was submitted had considered the review application and therefore, it could not be said by the petitioner, thereafter that the authority who considered the review application and passed the order, was not competent to consider and decide the review application. He lastly submited that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspurt was the appellate authority and review application was considered and dismissed by the appellate authority, hence no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 7. The action was taken against the petitioner on the allegation that petitioner while working on PRS/SKT on 29.10.2014 obliged touts in issuing four PNR tickets, each ticket for four passengers i.e. total 16 passengers ex-SKT to Morena, by taking an extra amount of Rs. 800/- as illegal money from the touts. This departmental inquiry was based on the criminal case 6 registered against the petitioner by Railway Police Force (RPF) and had subsequently framed the following charges: " करण त रणय क :- (1) " य अयतगण तर 29 अबर स! 2014 ई0 क# र$%$ &$श श(त क$ र$$ आर*ण कउ,र स$ 04 ग आर*त -क क# उ./त कर$ और 1 कर$ क अ23क4 त कर#बर त$ 5य$ .य$ गय$ ?” 8. The criminal case was also made on the ground that the petitioner had taken extra amount of Rs. 800/- (Eight Hundred) as commission for issuing four tickets bearing PNR Nos. (i) 643-4999927, (ii) 623-4999505, (iii) 623-5000579 and (iv) 673- 3890636. 9. In the departmental inquiry proceeding notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.03.2015 and a criminal case was registered in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 13.04.2015. Criminal case was decided on 26.11.2018 wherein it is ordered that the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against L.V. Kachhap (present petitioner) beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Perusal of the judgment passed in criminal case enclosed as Annexure P-7 would show that Anil Kumar Yadav (PW-10), one of the witness in criminal case, has not supported the case of prosecution with regard to making statement of the co-accused Shri Kashi Ram Ratre of making payment of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) for issuance of four tickets out of which petitioner issued four tickets and after deducting fair of tickets, taking Rs. 800/- (Eight Hundred) has returned Rs. 160/-(One Hundred and 7 Sixty). He denied that Kashyap Babu had made any statement before him accepting Rs. 800/- (Eight Hundred) and further had not supported the case that in front of him Kashyap Babu has taken out a note of Rs. 500/- (Five Hundred) and three notes of Rs. 100/-(One Hundred) and handed over to the employees of Railway Police Force (RPF). In criminal case, the Railway Police Force had examined as many as 10 witnesses in which R.K. Singh was examined as PW-1, who is also witness in the departmental inquiry proceedings. The prosecution has also examined the Head Constable F.R. Soni as PW-02, Commercial Clerk, Balram as PW-03 and after evaluating the entire evidence and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of the independent witness Anil Kumar Yadav PW-10, has acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. 11. In the departmental inquiry proceedings, along with the charge memo, documents relied upon/ enclosed were the copy of report of R.K. Singh, Sub Inspector, Railway Police Force, copy of the statement of Kashi Ram Ratre (tout), copy of statement of Anjor Das (tout), copy of statement of L.V. Kashyap (petitioner), copy of statement of F.R. Soni, head constable, RPF, copy of four PNR tickets and copy of requisition form (four pages were enclosed). The order of punishment is dated 13.12.2018 i.e. after passing of order of acquittal in criminal case dated 26.11.2018. It appears that on the date of passing the order by disciplinary authority, there was an order passed in criminal case which has not been considered as in the order of 8 punishment there is no mention with regard to the order passed in criminal case of acquitting the petitioner from the charges framed therein. 12. After passing of an order of punishment the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur on 10.01.2019, copy of the same is filed along with the reply filed by the respondents before the learned CAT. It is also appearing that thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an application under Rule 19 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1968 on 17.02.2020 which is an appeal of petitioner against the order dated 13.12.2018. The appellate authority had passed an order on 26.05.2020. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2020 and observed thus :- “Your petition dated 11.01.19 & dated 17.02.20 for review of punishment has been gone through carefully, considering all aspect of the disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings arising out of crime case No-RA/1715/2015 at RPF/BSP and criminal complaint No.- 1942/2014 decided on 26.11.18 Instruction contained in Para-18 of Master Circular No-67 of Indian Railway stipulates that the departmental case may be reviewed if employees is exonerated/acquitted in the criminal case on merit i.e. without benefit of or on technical ground.” 13. The misconduct certainly attributable to the act of CEO and the criminal and disciplinary proceedings, even though passed on same facts though charges not identical, therefore, the 9 probability of misconduct by the charged officer cannot be ruled out in these circumstances and had confirmed the punishment. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in view of the observation made by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur, charges leveled in the criminal case as also in the departmental inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, as of issuing four PNR tickets to touts and for which had obtained Rs. 800/- (Eight Hundred) as commission is illegal money. 15. Coming to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner of non-consideration of the application for review, that the review application is considered by the authority who is not the authority as prescribed under Para No. 18 of the Master Circular No. 67. Perusal of the documents enclosed with the reply filed by the respondent before learned CAT would show that the petitioner in fact has not submitted an application for review but filed an appeal before the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur on 10.01.2019 and 11.01.2019 and in the application submitted on 17.02.2020 it is clearly mentioned in the heading “petition for review of punishment”. Para No. 18 of the Master Circular which provides for review is extracted below for ready reference:- “18. There is no bar to initiation and conclusion of departmental action simultaneous with criminal proceedings on the same/similar charges. The ingredients of misconduct for departmental proceedings would be different from those of the offence with which the person is charged in the criminal proceedings. The standard of proof required 10 and the nature of evidence admitted are also different in the two proceedings. The departmental proceedings should continue independently unless they are stayed by a court of law. Such stay orders can be granted by courts on consideration of an application of the charged official that disclosure of his defence in the departmental proceedings would seriously prejudice his case in the criminal proceedings. (Ref: Supreme Court's judgements in the case of Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath Tiwari (1969(1)SCR 134), Kusheshwar Dubey Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (AIR 1988 Sup. Court 2118), orders of a 3 judge bench (1997 (2) SCC 699) and Board's letter No: E(D&A) 71 RG 6-36 dt. 6.6.74) However, if the facts, circumstances and the charges in the departmental proceedings are exactly identical to those in the criminal case and the employee is exonerated/acquitted in the criminal case on merits (without benefit of doubt or on technical grounds), then the departmental case may be reviewed if the employee concerned makes a representation in this regard. The review will obviously be done by the authority who passed the orders in the last. [Board's letter No. E(D&A) 95 RG 6-4 dt.7.6.95 (RBE 54/1995))" 16. Perusal of the aforementioned para no. 18 of the Master Circular No. 67 would show that the power of review is vested with the authority who passed the orders in last. In the case at hand, the last order was passed by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, the appropriate authority would be the disciplinary authority who can consider the petition for review of 11 punishment based on the order of acquittal passed by the Court in criminal case. In the case at hand, the order of punishment dated 13.12.2018 is by Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur and disciplinary authority, whereas the review jurisdiction has been exercised by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, (Co-ord), Bilaspur and competent authority. According to the Master Circular the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur cannot be said to be the authority to review the order of punishment issued against the petitioner. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) has held as under:- “52. There is a wholesome principle that the courts have been following for a very long time and which was articulated in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, namely : (SCC Online PC) “… where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” 18. In view of the aforementioned decisions, we are of the considered view that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur is not the authority prescribed under para no. 18 of the Master Circular No. 67 and it is not the authority who passed the orders in last, and therefore, order passed by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur, reviewing the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in exercise of 12 the powers of para no. 18 of Master Circular No. 67 is not sustainable. 19. The revisional authority has also escaped the consideration of this very aspect which goes to the root of the case i.e. the jurisdiction of authority to exercise the power of review. Further the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur observed that without benefit of doubt or technical ground while dismissing the application for review. These issues came for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue with regard to the expression “benefit of doubt” has observed as under:- “28. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honourably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.” 20. In the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is also observed that for arriving at the conclusion with regard to 13 the nature of acquittal, ground of acquittal, entire judgment of criminal case has to be read into. 21. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case when we have arrived at the conclusion that the review application submitted by the petitioner for reviewing of the order of punishment based on the ground of his acquittal in criminal case, was not considered by the authority having the jurisdiction in terms of para no. 18 of the Master Circular No. 67, we are of the considered view that the order dated 26. 05.2020 passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Co-ord, Bilaspur who would be the appellate authority was not having the jurisdiction to exercise the powers of review to review the order of punishment dated 13.12.2018 imposed by the disciplinary authority and therefore, the subsequent orders passed by the revisional authority are not sustainable. 22. Bare perusal of the application dated 17.02.2020 would show that it is placed before the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur, however from the heading of the application it is clear that the application is for review of punishment and the concerned authority ought to have forwarded the said application to the authority having jurisdiction under para no. 18 of the Master Circular No. 67. 23. True it is, that power of the Courts while considering the order of punishment passed by the authority in disciplinary enquiry proceedings is very limited. The Court can look into and interfere with the order of punishment only when from the 14 documents it is apparent that the decision making process was not correct or the rule which is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case has not been followed in its word and spirit. 24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Subrath Nath reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940 of 2022 have observed as under:- “15. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the Courts can certainly interfere.” 25. The aforementioned important fact escaped consideration of the learned CAT, as the CAT has only considered that the order of disciplinary authority upheld by the appellate authority has been subsequently modified by revisional authority which is not sustainable because the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bilaspur has considered the application submitted by petitioner for review of punishment and therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 25th February 2026 is not sustainable. 26. For the forgoing discussions and reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.02.2026 passed in O.A. No. 15 203/32/2022 by the learned Central Administration Tribunal, Jabalpur, M.P. is hereby set aside. Consequently, the orders dated 10.06.2021 and 26.05.2020 are also set aside. 27. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for considering afresh the review application dated 17.02.2020 in accordance with law, in the light of para no. 18 of the Master Circular No. 67. No order as to cost(s). Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Alza Judge Judge