Allahabad High Court
Rajveer Singh vs State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy. ... on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34381-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1366 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rajveer Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy. Home And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Vikas Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
(1) Heard Sri Anand Singh Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Rao, learned counsel representing the State-respondents.
(2) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted challenging an order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') whereby Claim Petition No.1290 of 2019 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay.
(3) The petitioner was awarded a punishment of censure entry on 31.05.2016 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura. He preferred a statutory appeal against the said order of the punishment of censure under Rule 20 of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1991') which was also dismissed by the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Region, Agra by means of an order dated 31.01.2017.
(4) Ordinarily against such an appellate order, remedy of revision under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1991 is available, however, it appears that the petitioner did not invoke the said remedy rather, on 10.11.2017 made a representation to the State Government. Since the said representation was not being decided, he instituted Writ Petition No.30894 (S/S) of 2018 which was finally disposed of by learned Single Judge by means of an order dated 25.10.2018 with a direction that if any representation under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 has been made, the Government shall take a decision as to whether it is inclined to exercise its power under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 or not. Learned Single Judge while passing the said order dated 25.10.2018 also noticed the submission made on behalf for petitioner in the said writ petition that he had not preferred any appeal against the punishment of censure, however, the said fact is apparently incorrect.
(5) In compliance of the said order dated 25.10.2018, the State Government rejected the said representation dated 10.11.2017 filed by the petitioner purportedly under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 on the ground that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991, any representation by the State Government can be considered only in a situation where the person approaching the State Government under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 has not invoked the remedy of appeal and since in this case, the petitioner had already exhausted the remedy of appeal, hence, the remedy as contemplated under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 was not available. The State Government thus rejected the representation dated 25.10.2018 made by the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 by passing the order dated 29.07.2019 holding that the said representation was not maintainable in view of the prescriptions available in Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991. Challenging the aforesaid orders, namely, the order of punishment, the appellate order as also the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the State Government, the petitioner instituted Claim Petition No.1290 of 2019 before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order under challenge herein, dated 17.12.2019.
(6) The Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition on the ground of limitation has observed that the claim petition has not been preferred in terms of the provisions contained in Section 5 of U.P. State Public Services Tribunal Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1975'). Noticing the facts of the case, the Tribunal has returned a finding that cause of action to the petitioner to file the claim petition under Section 4 of the Act, 1975 had accrued on the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority on 31.01.2017 and accordingly, the limitation for making reference under Section 4 of the Act, 1975 being one year, the claim petition ought to have been filed by the petitioner by 30.01.2018, however, the same was filed in the year 2019 and hence by operation of Section 5 of the Act, 1975, the reference/claim petition cannot be entertained.
(7) Learned counsel for petitioner has, however, attempted feebly to argue that learned Tribunal has failed to consider one very important aspect of the matter which is that against the order dated 31.01.2017 whereby appeal of the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner had already made a representation on 10.11.2017 and as such, the claim petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. We cannot agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the alleged representation dated 10.11.2017 said to have been filed by the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 was not maintainable for the reason that he had already exhausted the remedy of appeal and accordingly by taking recourse to a remedy which is otherwise not available to the petitioner, he cannot claim any benefit of limitation.
(8) In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 17.12.2019 which is under challenge before us in this writ petition.
(9) The writ petition is highly misconceived which is hereby dismissed.
(10) However, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
Shubhankar
