Netrapal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby it rejected the claim preferred by the petitioner against the rejection of his representation dated 01.09.2025 by the State Government.

¶13

The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed in the Home Department on the post of Constable on 01.02.1982. He fell ill during the period of duty, took three days' casual leave and went to his home. As he did not recover, he continued on leave after intimating the higher authorities about his illness. He proceeded on leave on 13.03.1997. The respondents issued a charge sheet dated 30.03.1999 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for remaining absent. However, no reply was filed by him and the punishing authority passed an order of removal from service on 28.07.1999.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that during the aforesaid period, he was suffering from mental illness and upon recovery, when he came to know that he had been dismissed from service, he preferred a representation before the State Government under the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police Officers and Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1991").

¶15

WRIA No. 4337 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

It is further the case of the petitioner that he can be punished only when there is good and sufficient reason. However, the punishment order does not disclose any reasons and therefore, he assailed the same before the State Government.

¶18

The State Government, while considering the representation of the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the same had been preferred after 25 years, for which no adequate explanation was forthcoming, formed the view that under the Rules, 1991, the petitioner had the liberty to prefer an appeal against the order of punishment, but he did not choose to avail himself of either of the remedies. Instead, he filed a revision before the State Government under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991. Consequently, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 01.09.2025, holding that he had not taken recourse to the prescribed remedies. The said order was challenged before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow.

¶19

The Tribunal also found that although no specific period of limitation is prescribed for filing such a representation, where no time limit is provided, the action must be taken within a reasonable time. Accordingly, it held that a delay of 25 years cannot be regarded as reasonable and since no satisfactory explanation was furnished for such delay, the claim petition filed by the petitioner was rejected.

¶20

In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 08.10.2025 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no requirement of first filing an appeal against the order of punishment and a fair reading of Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 would indicate that any person aggrieved by an order of punishment can directly approach the State Government.

¶22

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that this issue has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.14047 (SB) of 2021, Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Amol Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein it was held that without invoking the provisions of Rules 20 and 23 of the Rules, 1991, a person cannot straightaway invoke Rule 25, as such an interpretation would defeat the entire scheme of the Rules, 1991. A similar view was also taken in Writ-A No.7318 of 2024, Brijesh Kumar Yadav vs.

¶23

WRIA No. 4337 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

State of U.P. and others.

¶26

Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that no cogent explanation has been furnished on behalf of the petitioner for the delay of 25 years in initiating the process of filing a representation against the order of punishment. Mere assertion of suffering from mental illness, without annexing any medical certificate, is insufficient to satisfy this Court that the petitioner was prevented from availing the statutory remedy on account of such illness.

¶27

We also find that the Tribunal has rightly dealt with the aspect of delay inasmuch as even where no limitation period is prescribed, a delinquent employee must take recourse to legal remedies within a reasonable time. A delay of 25 years cannot be said to be reasonable for filing a representation before the State Government.

¶28

Apart from the above, Rule 25 further indicates that it confers discretionary power upon the State Government in the nature of suo motu jurisdiction, whereby the State Government may, even without any formal representation, invoke Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 whenever it is of the opinion that injustice has been caused to any employee, warranting interference at its level.

¶29

It cannot be said to be a remedy available to a delinquent employee; rather, it is a discretionary power vested in the State Government to be exercised with caution when it comes to the knowledge of the Government that some grave injustice has been caused. Such power can be exercised only when no appeal has been preferred by the delinquent employee.

¶30

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error of law or infirmity in dismissing the claim of the petitioner by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.10.2025.

¶31

Accordingly, we find no ground for interference in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed .

¶32

May 4, 2026 Mahesh

¶33

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Netrapal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netrapal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Murat Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 14 Others

Brijbhushan vs State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Chief Election Officer Lko and 3 Others

Mohammad Akbar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Babulal and 14 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Avas Evam Shahari Niyojan Vibhaag Lko. and 5 Others

Satyendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Sulekha Singh vs Lko. Municipal Corporation Thru. Municipal Commissioner and 5 Others