# Assistant Sub Inspector (M) Brajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 530
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-03
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7318 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/assistant-sub-inspector-m-brajesh-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54674
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Police Officers of the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rules 20, 23 & 25 -
Failure in filing the statutory Appeal and
Revision within time - Representation
under Rule 25 filed seeking direction to
decide it - Permissibility - Held, no
direction can be issued to the authority
concerned i.e. Principal Secretary, Home,
to decide the representation as by means
of
it,
the
petitioner
attempted
to
circumvent the statutory prescriptions to
file appeal and revision within the time so
prescribed under Rules 20 (6) & 23 (1) of
the Rules, 1991. (Para 5 and 6)

Writ dismissed of. (E-1)

## Text

530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been conducted and concluded in cursory
manner, therefore, findings of the Inquiry
Officer may be rejected and the direction for
fresh inquiry may be issued.

10.

The
aforesaid
letter
dated
29.08.2023 preferred by the Director General
concerned is patently illegal, arbitrary and
uncalled for and without jurisdictional in
terms of Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules, 1999 for
the reason that the Director General has got
no say or authority to request the Disciplinary
Authority to direct for re-inquiry. This power
vests with the Disciplinary Autority under
Rule 9 to agree with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer or not to agree with the
findings of the Inquiry Officer and in both
the case there is a specific modality to do the
needful.

11. By means of the short counter
affidavit the reason has been given that there
is some government order which authorizes
the departmental authority to submit her/
his
opinion
before
the
Disciplinary
Authority but Rule 8 & 9 of the Rules, 1999
do not permit the same. Therefore, by means
of any government order specific rule may
not circumvented. The law is trite on the
point that the Government Order may
supplant the rules but may not supplement
the same.

12. In view of the above, since there is
an error apparent on the face of record,
therefore office order dated 17.05.2024
(Annexure no. 34) passed by the Joint
Secretary of the Department for directing reinquiry is hereby set aside/ quashed.

13. The Disciplinary Authority shall
take appropriate decision on the inquiry
report
dated
05.07.2023,
strictly
in
accordance with law, to be more precise,
under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999.

14. Since no appropriate decision has
been taken by the Disciplinary Authority on
the inquiry report dated 05.07.2023 till date
under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1999 and the
impugned
decision
so
taken
on
17.05.2024(supra) which has been set aside
being
without
jurisdiction
and
illegal,
therefore,
the
suspension
order
dated
15.12.2022 passed by the opposite party
No.2, which is contained as Annexure No.1,
is hereby set aside/ quashed as more than 1
year and 9 months have been passed, since
then the petitioner is under suspension.

15. It is needless to say that the revival
of the departmental inquiry and the chargesheet dated 20.01.2023 shall remain subject
to the decision being taken by the
Disciplinary Authority under Rule 9 of the
Rules, 1999. If any decision is taken by the
Disciplinary Authority for revival of the
departmental inquiry and the charge-sheet,
the appropriate order to that effect shall be
passed following the due procedure of law.

16. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition is allowed.

17. No order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 530
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 7318 of 2024

Assistant
Sub
Inspector
(M)
Brajesh
Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
9 All. Assistant Sub Inspector (M) Brajesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
531
Sushil Kumar Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Police Officers of the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rules 20, 23 & 25 -
Failure in filing the statutory Appeal and
Revision within time - Representation
under Rule 25 filed seeking direction to
decide it - Permissibility - Held, no
direction can be issued to the authority
concerned i.e. Principal Secretary, Home,
to decide the representation as by means
of
it,
the
petitioner
attempted
to
circumvent the statutory prescriptions to
file appeal and revision within the time so
prescribed under Rules 20 (6) & 23 (1) of
the Rules, 1991. (Para 5 and 6)

Writ dismissed of. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Pathak, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
Ms.
Deepshikha,
learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel-II for the State-opposite parties.

2. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has prayed following reliefs:-

"(i) A writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
Mandamus
thereby
commanding and directing the opp. party
no. 1 i.e. the Principal secretary, Grah
Police Anubhag-1, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to consider and
decide the Representation of the petitioner
dated 26/12/2023 under Rule 25 of U.P.
Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as
contained in Annexure No. 6 to this Writ
Petition, by way of passing a speaking and
reasoned order, within the stipulated
period.

(ii) Any other order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem
appropriate
and
proper
in
the
circumstances and allow this Writ Petition
with substantial costs, throughout."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention of this Court towards
Annexure No.6 of the writ petition, which
is a representation of the petitioner being
filed under Rule 25 of the U.P. Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules,
1991") against five orders of punishment.
The date of punishment orders are different
i.e. orders dated 11.07.2014, 26.01.2017,
05.05.2018, 18.03.2019 and 27.04.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
stated that as per Rule 25 of the Rules,
1991, if any employee has not filed appeal,
he/she may prefer his/her representation
under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 and
direction may be issued to the competent
authority to decide the representation of the
petitioner.

4. Per contra, Ms. Deepshikha,
learned Chief Standing Counsel-II, has
submitted that invoking powers of the
Government under Rule 25 of the Rules,
1991, the statutory prescriptions to file
appeal
and
revision
may
not
be
circumvented. If any Police Officer is
aggrieved from the punishment order, he
may file appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules,
1991 and if he/ she is still aggrieved,
revision may be filed under Rule 23 of the
Rules, 1991. Power under Rule 25 of the
Rules, 1991 is a power of the Government
whereby the Government may on its own
motion or otherwise call for and examine
the records of any case decided by the
authority against which no appeal has been
preferred but this Rule does not permit the
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Police Officer to prefer an application
ignoring the statutory prescriptions relating
to the appeal and revision.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record as well as perusing the
relevant provisions of law and Rules, 1991,
I am of the considered opinion that on
account of any provision of law authorizing
the Government to call for and examine the
record on its own motion or otherwise may
not
make
the
statutory
prescriptions
redundant, which have been provided
earlier to such prescription. To be more
precise, under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991,
any Police Officer may file statutory appeal
challenging the punishment order within
the prescribed period and if such officer is
aggrieved from the order of the appellate
authority, the revision may be filed under
Rule 23 of the Rules, 1991 within specific
period. If any Police Officer does not file
statutory appeal and statutory revision
within the time so stipulated and has slept
over on the issue, then filing any
representation under Rule 25 of the Rules,
1991 saying that since he has not filed any
appeal and there is no limitation under
Rule 25, therefore, the Government may
pass any appropriate order invoking its
power under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991
may not be permissible under the law
otherwise the earlier provisions i.e. Rule
20 and Rule 23 of the Rules, 1991 would
be redundant and any Police Officer may
likely ignore the appellate provision and
revisional provision and will approach the
State Government straight away under
Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 saying that
since no time limit has been prescribed
under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 and such
representation may be preferred in the
case where the appeal has not been filed,
so the representation may be decided, in
that situation the statutory prescriptions
would be circumvented deliberately and
intentionally. No Court can permit to
circumvent the statutory prescriptions,
rather this has been the consistent view of
the Apex Court as well as this Court to
approach the statutory appellate and
revisional authority before approaching
any other authority, be it Court or State
Government.

6. Therefore, in view of the above,
since the petitioner has preferred a
representation under Rule 25 of the Rules,
1991 challenging the punishment orders
passed since 2014 till 2019 in a composite
representation, therefore, no direction can
be issued to the authority concerned i.e.
Principal Secretary, Home, to decide the
aforesaid representation as by means of
aforesaid representation, the petitioner
attempted to circumvent the statutory
prescriptions to file appeal and revision
within the time so prescribed under Rules
20 (6) & 23 (1) of the Rules, 1991.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed being misconceived.

8. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 532
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ A No. 12611 of 2024
Along with
Writ A No. 11436 of 2024

Rajiv Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents