[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Pradeep Singh Bhauryal Constable No. ... vs Deputy Inspector Of P.A.C. Police ... on 7 April, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:2461
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition No. 1675 of 2017 (SS)
Pradeep Singh Bhauryal Constable No. 3554 --Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Inspector of P.A.C. Police Headquarter
and another -Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates: Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Devesh
Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner was serving as Constable in Indian Reserve
Battalion, and he was dismissed from service vide order
dated 05.09.2012 passed by Commandant, IRB, Bailparaw,
Ramnagar, Nainital. Against his dismissal, petitioner filed an
appeal, which has been dismissed on the ground of delay
vide order dated 05.05.2014. Thus, feeling aggrieved,
petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order
passed by Appellate Authority as well as the Disciplinary
Authority.
2. Perusal of the order passed by Appellate
Authority/Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.C.
Uttarakhand, reveals that the appeal was dismissed on the
sole ground that it was not filed within 03 months from
passing of the punishment order and there was delay of 01
year 07 months and 24 days.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of
unauthorized absence between 07.04.2012 to 19.05.2012;
the dismissal order was passed by the Commandant on
05.09.2012, therefore, the limitation for filing appeal,
prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the
2026:UHC:2461
Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal), Rules 1991
would have no application, when the Police Act, 1861 under
which the said Rules were framed itself was repealed by
Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007.
4. He submits that Section 26 of the Uttarakhand Police
Act, 2007, provides for appeal against orders of
punishment; however, no limitation for filing appeal is
prescribed in Uttarakhand Police Act, therefore, the
limitation prescribed in Rules of 1991 framed under Police
Act, 1861 cannot be invoked for dismissing petitioner's
appeal.
5. Learned State Counsel, however, refers to Section 86
of Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007, which deals with repeal
and savings. State Counsel relies upon Clause (2) of Section
86 for contending that Rules or Regulations framed under
Police Act, 1861 are protected by the saving clause and
they shall have the same effect as if they were framed
under Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to
the latter half of Clause (2) of Section 86 of the
Uttarakhand Police Act for contending that the Rules or
Regulations framed under Police Act, 1861 can have
application after enforcement of Uttarakhand Police Act
2007, only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of
Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007.
7. He submits that there is inconsistency between Rules
of 1991 framed under Police Act, 1861 and Section 26 of
Uttarakhand Police Act in as much as in the Uttarakhand
Police Act 2007, there is no period of limitation prescribed
for appeal, while in the Rules, there is limitation prescribed
for filing appeal, therefore, to the extent of this
2026:UHC:2461
inconsistency, the Rules of 1991 will have to give way to
the provisions of Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007.
8. He submits that Rules of 1991 can have application
with the caveat that the limitation prescribed in Clause (6)
of Rule 20 of 1991 Rules will stand superseded by Section
26 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007, meaning thereby
that there would be no limitation for filing an appeal after
enforcement of Uttarakhand Police Act 2007.
9. This Court finds substance in the contention raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Rules framed under a legislation are subservient to the
parent legislation. In the present case, Rules of 1991 were
framed under Police Act, 1861 which was repealed by
Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007; however, on the strength of
Clause (2) of Section 86 of Uttarakhand Police Act 2007,
rules framed under the old Act are still in force. However,
the provision regarding limitation for filing appeal, as
mentioned in Clause (6) of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991
cannot have any application in view of latter half of Section
86(2) of Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007, which has repealed
the parent Act under which the said rules were framed.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is
allowed. The order passed by Appellate Authority on
05.05.2014 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.
The matter is relegated back to Appellate Authority, who
shall examine the appeal filed by petitioner and decide it on
merits within two months from date of presentation of
certified copy of this order.
______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 07.04.2026
Mahinder
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MAHINDER SINGH
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08
923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA
4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
2026:UHC:2461
