# Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Amol Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 710
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-08
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 14047 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sub-inspector-civil-police-amol-kumar-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47258
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Representation against
order of punishment - Uttar Pradesh
Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Rule 20, 23, 25 - A delinquent employee
without exhausting the statutory remedy
of appeal and revision as provided under
Rules 20 and 23 of Rules of 1991 cannot
avail the powers of State Government
u/Rule 25 of Rules of 1991 by making a
representation. (Para 9, 13)

It was not a statutory representation preferred
by the petitioner and the period of limitation
shall be counted from the date of punishment
orders and not from the date on which the
representation of the petitioner was rejected.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly come
to the conclusion that the claim petition
preferred by the petitioner was time barred and,
as such, is liable to be rejected. (Para 9, 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent cited:

## Text

710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

36. The courts have consistently
observed that delay and laches on part of
the litigant will lead to denial of relief. In
this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
settled the law with clarity and observed it
with consistency.

37. In the wake of preceding
discussion, the writ petition is devoid of
merit and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)07ILR A710
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Service Bench No. 14047 of 2021

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Amol Kumar
Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sushil Kumar Pathak, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shikhar Anand

A. Service Law - Representation against
order of punishment - Uttar Pradesh
Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Rule 20, 23, 25 - A delinquent employee
without exhausting the statutory remedy
of appeal and revision as provided under
Rules 20 and 23 of Rules of 1991 cannot
avail the powers of State Government
u/Rule 25 of Rules of 1991 by making a
representation. (Para 9, 13)

It was not a statutory representation preferred
by the petitioner and the period of limitation
shall be counted from the date of punishment
orders and not from the date on which the
representation of the petitioner was rejected.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly come
to the conclusion that the claim petition
preferred by the petitioner was time barred and,
as such, is liable to be rejected. (Para 9, 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent cited:

1. S.S. Rathor Vs St. of M.P. & ors., (1989) 4
SCC 582 (Para 16)

2. Dr. Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ Petition No. 28869 (S/B) of 2017 (Para 16)

Present petition assails judgment dated
28.06.2021, passed by U.P. State Public
Service Tribunal, Lucknow and order
dated 11.06.2018.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
&
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

 1. The case is taken up through
Video Conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Mr. Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1
and learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite parties no.2, 3 and 4.

3. The instant writ petition has been
filed challenging the impugned judgment
and order dated 28.06.2021, passed by U.P.
State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in
Claim Petition No.2321 of 2018; Amol
Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others
and the order dated 11.06.2018, passed by
opposite party no.3, whereby the claim
petition preferred by the petitioner has been
rejected being time barred.

4. As per the facts of the case in brief,
the petitioner while working on the post of
7 All. Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Amol Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
711
Sub Inspector in U.P. Police was awarded
minor punishments of five censure entries
for the incidence relating to the year 201213. The petitioner did not file departmental
appeals against the order of punishment. He
had
moved
a
representation
dated
20.10.2017 before the State Government.
The State Government did not decide the
representation of the petitioner. Thereafter
the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6378
(SS) of 2018; Amol Kumar Sharma Vs.
State of U.P. and others. The said writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated
28.02.2018 by the High Court with a
direction to the State Government to
consider and decide the representation of
the petitioner within a period of three
months. The State Government thereafter
in compliance of High Court's order
decided the representation and rejected the
same vide order dated 11.06.2018.

5. It was thereafter that the petitioner
preferred a claim petition challenging the
order dated 11.06.2018 and seeking a
direction not to take into consideration the
impugned punishment of censure entries
for the purpose of his promotion. Learned
Tribunal considering the submissions made
by the petitioner as well as counsel for the
opposite parties rejected the claim petition
holding that the representation preferred by
the
petitioner
was
not
statutory
representation and, as such, the period of
limitation shall be counted from the date of
punishment orders and accordingly the
claim preferred by the petitioner was time
barred and therefore liable to be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the representation of the
petitioner dated 20.10.2017 was preferred
under Rule 25 of Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991)
and,
as
such,
it
was
a
statutory
representation. Once it was rejected the
period of limitation shall be counted from
the date of rejection of that order i.e.
11.06.2018.
The
claim
petition
was
preferred within the prescribed period of
limitation of one year from 11.06.2018 and,
as such, it was not time barred. Learned
Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the
claim petition treating it to be time barred.

7.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite parties
no.2, 3 & 4, on the other hand, submits that
as per the Rules of 1991 a delinquent
employee
who
is
awarded
minor
punishments of censure entries under Rule
4 (b) can file an appeal under Rule 20 of
Rules of 1991 within a period of three
months. Even after exhausting the remedy
of appeal the delinquent employee can
prefer a revision under Rule 23 of Rules of
1991. In the present case the petitioner did
not avail the statutory departmental remedy
of appeal under Rule 20 of Rules of 1991
and revision under Rule 23 of Rules of
1991 and preferred a representation, that
too, after approximately four years from the
date of punishment order.

8. It is also submitted that Rule 25 of
Rules of 1991 empowers the State
Government to act on its own motion or
otherwise call for and examine the records
of any case decided by an authority,
subordinate to it in the exercise of any
power conferred on such authority by these
rules and against which no appeal has been
preferred under these rules.

9. Submission is that Rule 25 of Rules
of 1991 would not be attracted in the
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present case as the petitioner cannot take
the benefit of filing representation without
exhausting the remedy of appeal and
revision, as provided under the said Rules.
It was not a statutory representation
preferred by the petitioner and, as such, the
period of limitation shall be counted from
the date of punishment orders and not from
the date on which the representation of the
petitioner was rejected.

10.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by parties' counsel and
gone through the records.

11. As per the admitted facts of the
case, the punishments of censure entries
was awarded to the petitioner under Rules
of 1991, particularly Rule 4 which reads as
under:

"4.
Punishment--
(1)
The
following punishments may, for good and
sufficient reasons and as hereinafter
provided, be imposed upon a Police
Officer, namely :--

(a) Major Penalties :--

(i ) Dismissal from service.

(ii) Removal from service.

(iii) Reduction in rank including
reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower
stage in a time scale.

(b) Minor penalties :--

(i) With-holding of promotion.

(ii) Fine not exceeding one
month's pay.

(iii) With-holding of increment,
including stoppage at an efficiency bar.

(iv) Censure."

12. Rules 20 and 23 of Rules of 1991
clearly stipulates the provision of appeal as
well as revision against the punishments
awarded under Rule 4 of Rules of 1991. It
also provides the limitation under which
the said appeal and revision can be filed.
The provision of Rule 20 and 23 of Rules
of 1991 are reproduced as under:

"20. Appeals.--[(1) Every Police
Officer, against whom an order of
punishment mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to
(iii) of Clause (a) and sub-clauses (i) to (iv)
of Clause (b) of rule 4 shall be entitled to
prefer an appeal against the order of such
punishment to the authority mentioned
below:

(a) to the Police Officer who is
the
immediate
jurisdictional
superior
authority to the Police Officer who passed
the order of punishment;

(b) to the Director General of
Police who may either decide the appeal
himself
or
nominate
any
Additional
Director General for deciding it;

(c) to the State Government
against the order passed under Clause(b).

(2) No appeal shall lie against an
order
inflicting
any
of
the
petty
punishments enumerated in sub-rules (2)
and (3) of Rule 4.

(3) Every officer desiring to
prefer an appeal shall do so separately.
7 All. Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Amol Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
713

(4) Every appeal, preferred under
these rules shall contain all materials,
statements, arguments relied on by the
Police Officers preferring the appeal, and
shall be complete in itself, but shall not
contain
disrespectful
or
improper
language.
Every
appeal
shall
be
accompanied by a copy of final order
which is the subject of appeal.

(5) Every appeal, whether the
appellant is still in service of Government
or not, shall be submitted through the
Superintendent of Police of the district or
in the case of Police Officers not employed
in district work through the head of the
office to which the appellant belongs or
belonged.

(6) An appeal will not be
entertained unless it is preferred within
three months from the date on which the
Police Officer concerned was informed of
the order of punishment:

Provided that appellate authority
may. at his discretion, for good cause
shown extend the said period up to six
months.

(7) If the appeal preferred does
not comply with the provisions of sub-rule
(4) the appellate authority may require the
appellant to comply with the provisions of
the said sub-rule within one month of the
notice of such order to him and if the
appellant
fails
to
make
the
above
compliance the appellate author ity may
dispose of the appeal in the manner as it
deems fit.

(8) The Director-General or an
Inspector-General may. for reasons to be
re corded in writing, either on his own
motion or on request from an appellate
authority before whom the appeal is
pending transfer the same to any other
officer of corresponding rank."

"23. Revision. [(1) An officer
whose appeal has been rejected by any
author ity 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 ex amine 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:
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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."

13. Rule 25 of Rules of 1991 is an
enabling provision under which the State
Government has been empowered to
confirm, modify or revise the order passed
by any such authority or direct that a
further enquiry be held in a case or reduce
or enhance the penalty imposed by the
order or make such other order in the case
as it may deem fit on its own motion or
otherwise after calling for and examining
the records of any case decided by the
authority, subordinate to it. It does not
mean that a delinquent employee without
exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal
and revision as provided under Rules 20
and 23 of Rules of 1991 can avail the
powers of State Government under Rule 25
of
Rules
of
1991
by
making
a
representation. In case the argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner in this
regard is accepted, it will frustrate the
entire scheme of Rules as provided under
Rules of 1991 relating to punishment and
the appeal and revision thereafter.

14. We cannot accept the arguments
made in this regard by learned counsel for
the petitioner.

15. Now, if we examine the impugned
judgment and order dated 28.06.2021,
passed by learned Tribunal, we see that the
learned Tribunal has dealt, in detail, the
provisions under Rules of 1991 and the
relevant legal position with respect to the
limitation in approaching the Court.

16. Learned Tribunal has rightly
relied on the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of S.S. Rathor Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh and others;1 and
judgment of this court in the case of Dr.
Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and
others;2. Learned Tribunal has rightly
come to the conclusion that the claim
petition preferred by the petitioner was
time barred and, as such, is liable to be
rejected.

17. We do not find any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned judgment and
order dated 28.06.2021, passed by U.P.
State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in
Claim Petition No.2321 of 2018; Amol
Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
others.

18. The writ petition being devoid of
merit is dismissed.
----------
(2021)07ILR A714
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Service Single No. 28509 of 2018

Ram Surat Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh
Chandra
Tewari,
Gyan
Prakash
Srivastava