Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 152495 (ALL)

ANUP KUMAR PNO. 112075200 v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/7862/2025 · 2025-07-23

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42102 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7862 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anup Kumar Pno. 112075200 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Himanshu Deepak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to authority concerned for expeditious disposal of representation preferred by petitioner on 04.04.2025 under Rule 23(C) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991[hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1991]. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier petitioner was visited with a minor penalty vide order dated 06.02.2023 whereafter Appeal was required to be preferred within a period of three months from the date of such order but due to personal difficulties, petitioner was unable to avail himself of such a remedy and has thereafter filed an Application/Representation under aforesaid Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991. 4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that once limitation period for filing of Appeal has expired, Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991 would be applicable only to an authority next higher to disciplinary authority, which in this case would be the Director General of Police and not the State Government. It is also submitted that even under Rule 23(C) of the Rules of 1991, there is no power to condone any delay. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner however submits that aforesaid provision clearly indicates that State Government suo motu or on information received can exercise such powers and therefore such a provision is akin to revisional powers. 6. However, considering the fact that petitioner has already submitted a representation to State Government, this Court, without entering into merits of the dispute, directs oppose party no.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to decide the dispute expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with copy of said representation is produced before the authority concerned. 7. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands finally disposed of. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench