Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46324-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8957 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Respondent :- State Public Services Tribunal U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Divyarth Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Shikhar Anand,C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard. 2. Apparently, the order of minor punishment i.e. censure was passed on 12.10.2015. An appeal was preferred against it on 09.01.2016 which was decided on 16.04.2016. A revision was filed under Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 (in short 'the Rule, 1991') on 10.05.2016 and it was dismissed on 06.06.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 19.07.2016 as claimed with reference to Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 which was decided on 29.07.2020 and thereafter within one year of passing of the said order, the claim petition was filed, therefore, the petitioner says that claim petition was within limitation. 3. Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 reads as under. "25. Power of Government - Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules the Government may, 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 preferred under these rules and- (a) confirm, modify or revise order passed by such authority ,or (b) direct that a further inquiry be held in the case ,or (c) reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by the order ,or (d) make such other order in the case as it may deem fit. Provided that where it is proposed to enhance the penalty imposed by any such order the police officer concerned shall be given an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed enhancement." 4. The exercise of power under Rule 25 was permissible when no appeal had been preferred against the order of punishment. In this case, an appeal had been preferred, therefore, proceedings under Rule 25 were not maintainable and it was rightly rejected as not being maintainable, therefore, no benefit of the order dated 29.07.2020 could accrue to the petitioner for calculation of limitation before the tribunal. The limitation expired long back on expiry of period of one year from passing of the revisional order dated 06.06.2016 whereas the claim petition was preferred in 2020. The tribunal is not at fault in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of limitation. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench