Dismissed

Assistant Sub Inspector (M) Brajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Grah Police Anubhag Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024WRIA/7318/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought direction to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to consider his representation under Rule 25 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, challenging punishment orders. The court held that filing under Rule 25 without exhausting statutory appeal and revision mechanisms under Rules 20 an

What the court decided

AI extract

Assistant Sub Inspector (M) Brajesh Kumar… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60449 A.F.R.

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7318 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Assistant Sub Inspector (M) Brajesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Grah Police Anubhag Home Deptt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

"(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.

¶9

(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."

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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 Police Officer to prefer an application ignoring the statutory prescriptions relating to the appeal and revision.

¶13

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.

¶14

Therefore, in view of the above, since the petitioner has

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being misconceived.

¶17

No order as to costs.

¶18

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 RBS/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Assistant Sub Inspector (M) Brajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Grah Police Anubhag Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Assistant Sub Inspector (M) Brajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Grah Police Anubhag Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Services and 3 Others

Kashish Baranwal Vs District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri

Sarvesh Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil. Secy. Lko. and Others

Lekh Ram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko and Another

Nikhil Rathaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rular Development Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Kamla Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others