High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2,3 and 4 as well as Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging, the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.968 of 2025 whereby, the claim petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that though his statutory appeal filed under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1991") had been dismissed on the ground of delay, but since he had challenged the punishment order as well as the appellate order before the learned Tribunal, his claim petition was within the period of limitation from the date of passing of the appellate order. It has further been argued that learned Tribunal, while dismissing the claim petition, had committed a manifest error of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 4 has argued that from bare reading of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991, it is crystal clear that the appellate authority has power to condone a delay of maximum period of six months and beyond that there is no power to condone the delay. It has further been argued that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that in the present case the appeal was filed with a delay of almost two years, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the appeal was within time. It has also been argued that once it is apparent from the face of record that the appeal was highly time barred, the Tribunal, while rejecting the claim petition as time barred, has not committed any error. 2 WRIA No. 9229 of 2025

5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that the punishment order against the petitioner was passed on 31.12.2022 and after almost two years, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Rule 20 of the Rules 1991 which had been dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 23.01.2025. For ready reference, Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 is extracted as under:- "20. 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. (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 authority may dispose of the appeal 3 WRIA No. 9229 of 2025 in the manner as it deems fit. (8) The Director-General or an Inspector-General may for reasons to be recorded 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."

6. Rule 20 (6) of the Rules of 1991 provides that a Police Officer can file an appeal against the punishment order within a period of three months from the date he was informed about the punishment order. Proviso appended to Rule 20 (6) of the Rules of 1991 further provides that the appellate authority may at his discretion for good cause shown extend the period for filing appeal by six months. Thus, it is patently manifest that the appellate authority can entertain the appeal filed within the period of nine months i.e. three months period of limitation and thereafter six months for which the appellate authority can condone the delay in filing the appeal. Every appeal filed beyond the period of nine months is bound to be dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation.

7. It is admitted case of the parties that the punishment order dated 31.12.2022 was received by the petitioner on 10.01.2023 and thereafter he had filed the appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 on 09.01.2025, therefore, the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had been filed much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Rule 20(6) of the Rules of 1991 and also beyond the period for which the appellate authority can condone the delay.

8. We are of the view that once the appeal filed against the punishment order had been dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Rules, then even if along with the punishment order, the appellate order is also challenged before the learned Tribunal, the claim petition would be within limitation only for the purpose of considering the validity of the appellate order i.e. whether it had rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation or not, nothing more. The Tribunal has rightly opined that the appeal had rightly been dismissed as barred by limitation. It being so the claim petition was clearly barred by limitation so far as challenge to the punishment order was concerned and has rightly been dismissed.

9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No.968 of 2025 whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 31.12.2022 and the appellate order dated 23.01.2025 had been dismissed on the ground of limitation as the period of limitation for entertaining the claim petition is only one year from the date of order and in the present case punishment order was passed on 31.12.2022. 4 WRIA No. 9229 of 2025

10. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2,3 and 4 as well as Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging, the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.968 of 2025 whereby, the claim petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that though his statutory appeal filed under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1991") had been dismissed on the ground of delay, but since he had challenged the punishment order as well as the appellate order before the learned Tribunal, his claim petition was within the period of limitation from the date of passing of the appellate order. It has further been argued that learned Tribunal, while dismissing the claim petition, had committed a manifest error of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 4 has argued that from bare reading of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991, it is crystal clear that the appellate authority has power to condone a delay of maximum period of six months and beyond that there is no power to condone the delay. It has further been argued that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that in the present case the appeal was filed with a delay of almost two years, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the appeal was within time. It has also been argued that once it is apparent from the face of record that the appeal was highly time barred, the Tribunal, while rejecting the claim petition as time barred, has not committed any error. 2 WRIA No. 9229 of 2025

5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that the punishment order against the petitioner was passed on 31.12.2022 and after almost two years, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Rule 20 of the Rules 1991 which had been dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 23.01.2025. For ready reference, Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 is extracted as under:- "20. 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. (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 authority may dispose of the appeal 3 WRIA No. 9229 of 2025 in the manner as it deems fit. (8) The Director-General or an Inspector-General may for reasons to be recorded 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."

6. Rule 20 (6) of the Rules of 1991 provides that a Police Officer can file an appeal against the punishment order within a period of three months from the date he was informed about the punishment order. Proviso appended to Rule 20 (6) of the Rules of 1991 further provides that the appellate authority may at his discretion for good cause shown extend the period for filing appeal by six months. Thus, it is patently manifest that the appellate authority can entertain the appeal filed within the period of nine months i.e. three months period of limitation and thereafter six months for which the appellate authority can condone the delay in filing the appeal. Every appeal filed beyond the period of nine months is bound to be dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation.

7. It is admitted case of the parties that the punishment order dated 31.12.2022 was received by the petitioner on 10.01.2023 and thereafter he had filed the appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 on 09.01.2025, therefore, the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had been filed much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Rule 20(6) of the Rules of 1991 and also beyond the period for which the appellate authority can condone the delay.

8. We are of the view that once the appeal filed against the punishment order had been dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Rules, then even if along with the punishment order, the appellate order is also challenged before the learned Tribunal, the claim petition would be within limitation only for the purpose of considering the validity of the appellate order i.e. whether it had rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation or not, nothing more. The Tribunal has rightly opined that the appeal had rightly been dismissed as barred by limitation. It being so the claim petition was clearly barred by limitation so far as challenge to the punishment order was concerned and has rightly been dismissed.

9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No.968 of 2025 whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 31.12.2022 and the appellate order dated 23.01.2025 had been dismissed on the ground of limitation as the period of limitation for entertaining the claim petition is only one year from the date of order and in the present case punishment order was passed on 31.12.2022. 4 WRIA No. 9229 of 2025

10. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench