Allahabad High Court
Tribhuwan Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 2 September, 2021
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 19067 of 2021
Petitioner :- Tribhuwan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas Mr. Shikhar Anand, Advocate has accepted notice for opposite party no. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 14.7.2021 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 165 of 2020 (Tribhuwan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as Office Order dated 29.1.2020 passed by opposite party no. 1 on the alleged representation (revision) under Rule 23 (c) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'Rules of 1991'), exparte minor punishment order (censure entry) dated 5.8.20212 passed by the opposite party no. 5, appellate order dated 30.8.2018 passed by opposite party no. 4 and revisional order dated 17.1.2019 passed by opposite party no. 3 as contained in Annexure No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 respectively to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991 the power of revision is provided and under Rule 23 (c) it is provided that the revision can be preferred before the State Government. The petitioner has preferred a representation before the State Government which has been decided on merit vide order dated 29.1.2020. The claim petition was preferred within one year from the said date, as such, it was within the period of limitation and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in dismissing the same on the ground of limitation.
The sole question involved in this writ petition is whether the Rule 23 of Rules of 1991 provides any opportunity to the delinquent employee to prefer a representation before the Sate Government after rejection of his/her appeal/revision. Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991, for convenience, is reproduced below:
"23. Revision. (1) An officer whose appeal has been rejected by any authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the superior authority next to the authority which has rejected his appeal within three months from the date of rejection of appeal as mentioned below:
(a) to the Police officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the appellate order.
(b) to the Director General of Police who may either decide the revision himself or nominate any Additional Director General for deciding it;
(c) to the State Government against the order passed under Clause (b).
On such an application the powers of revision may be exercised only when, in consequent of flagrant irregularity, there appears to have been material injustice or miscarriage of justice :
Provided that the revising authority may on its own motion call for and examine the records of any order passed in appeal against which no revision has been preferred under this rule for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit :
Provided further that no order under the first proviso shall be made except after giving the person effected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(2) The procedure prescribed for appeal applies also to application for revision. An application for revision of an order rejecting an appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the original order as well as the order of appellate authority."
From perusal of the said Rule, it is evidently clear that under Rule 23 power of revision is provided. Rule 23 says that an Officer whose appeal has been rejected by any authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the superior authority next to the authority who has rejected the appeal within three months from the date of rejection of appeal as mentioned above. Rule 23 (a) provides that the Police Officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the appellate order. Rule 23(b) provides that the Director General of Police who may either decide the revision himself or nominate any Additional Director General for deciding it. Rule 23 (c) provides that revision can be preferred to the State Government against the order passed in sub Clause (b), meaning thereby that in case the appeal has been rejected by the Director General of Police himself or by an Officer nominated by him of the rank of Additional Director General of Police, in that case the revision will lie before the State Government. The proviso to the said Rule provides that the revising authority may on its own motion call for and examine the records of any order passed in appeal against which no revision has been preferred under this rule for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit. It further provides that no order under the first proviso shall be made except after giving the person effected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Rules 23 (2) of the Rules of 1991 provides that the procedure prescribed for appeal applies also to application for revision.
From the above facts, it is evidently clear that there is no provision under Rule 23 (c) of the Rules of 1991 for making a representation to the State Government.
In the present case, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut. Thereafter the revision was preferred before the Additional Director General of Police which was rejected vide order dated 17.1.2019. Now, after rejection of the revision there was no question of preferring a representation before the State Government. The said representation preferred by the petitioner cannot be said to be a statutory representation. As such, even if was decided on merit, it is of no consequence. The limitation for filing the claim petition shall run from the date the order passed on the revision.
In view of above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Tribunal.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
[Abdul Moin, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.]
Order Date :- 2.9.2021
Santosh/-
