(A.F.R.) HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9704 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1 . By means of this petition, the petitioner-Sub Inspector of Police has challenged an order dated 23.5.2025 passed in Claim Petition No. 1767 of 2024 on the ground that the claim petition was barred by limitation. 2. Before proceeding further, we may point out that limitation for filing a reference/claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal is governed by the law of limitation as applicable to suits, meaning-thereby there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing a reference or claim petition. Limitation prescribed is one year as per Section 4 of U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act of 1976'). In this very context, there are judicial pronouncements of this Court recent one being reported in 2024 (8) ADJ 788 (State of U.P. Vs. Birendra Bahadur Singh) and an earlier judgment reported in 2015 4 AWC 4130 All ( State of U.P. and others Vs. Vivekanand Singh and others). 3. Now, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was visited Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Singh, Anil Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shikhar Anand Vikas Charan (S.I. , Pno - 982512397) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) with a minor punishment of censure vide an order passed on 26.8.2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Against this punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Police under Section 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Rules of 1991'), which was rejected on merits on 5.3.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 23 of the Rules of 1991 before the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar. The said revision was filed on 8.12.2023 whereas the limitation for preferring the same is prescribed in Rules 23 of the Rules of 1991 as three month from the date of rejection of appeal, therefore, the revisional authority i.e. the Commissioner of Police, who is equivalent to an Additional Director General of Police, dismissed the revision vide order dated 21.12.2023 on the point of limitation itself without entering into the merits of the revision. 4. Against the revisional order dated 21.12.2023, the petitioner preferred a revision to the State Government relying upon Section 23 (1) (c) of the Rules of 1991 on 8.2.2024. This revision was not decided, therefore, the petitioner filed a reference/claim petition before U.P. Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow bearing Claim Petition No. 162 of 2024, which was decided on 29.1.2024 in the following terms:- "1- This claim petition has been filed under Section 4 of the U.P Public Service Tribunal, Act, 1976 for following relief as prayed in Para-8 of the Claim Petition:- (1) To direct the opposite party No. 1 to decide the representation dated 3.1.2024 of the petitioner under rule-23(C) of U.P Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 2-The learned counsel for petitioner submit that petitioner has filed a representetion dated 03.01.2024 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the claim petitioner before Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, (Home), Lok Bhawan, Lucknow under Rule 23(C) of U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991, which is pending for decision as yet. 3-Since matter is engaging attention of Opposite Party No. 1 WRIA No. 9704 of 2025 2 (Principal Secretary. (Home), Lok Bhawan, Lucknow I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. Consequently, after hearing Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Presenting Officer for Opposite Parties, 1 disposed of this claim petition at admission stage directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to take a decision on petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2024 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the claim petition by passing speaking and reasoned order within period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4. It is clarified that I am not making any comment upon the merit of the case" 5. Before the Tribunal an impression was given that a representation was pending before the State Government without any reference to the provision of Rule 23 whereas before us it is being said that a revision was pending. The question of maintainability of that revision before the State Government under Section 23 (1) (c) of the Rules of 1991 was not gone into by the Tribunal. Based on this order, the State Government passed an order on the alleged revision on 9.8.2024 considering the merits of the matter ignoring the fact that the said revision was filed against an order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police dismissing the earlier revision on the ground of limitation. Be that as it may, armed with the said order dated 9.8.2024 against him, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 1767 of 2024 claiming it to be within limitation. It is this claim petition which has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal for the reason; firstly, that the revision filed on 8.12.2023 before the Commissioner of Police itself was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected by the said officer. The said revision could be traced to clause (a) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 23 of the Rules 1991 as it was preferred against the appellate order passed by an immediate subordinate authority to Commissioner of Police i.e. by the Additional Commissioner of Police and not clause (b) of sub- rule 1 of Rule 23 of the Rules 1991 as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us. The petitioner's counsel however submitted that the Commissioner of Police is equivalent to Additional Director General of Police, therefore, he relies upon clause (b) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 23 of the Rules 1991 WRIA No. 9704 of 2025 3 to contend that a second revision before the State Government was maintainable. We have perused Section 23 of the Rules 1991, which reads as under: "Rule 23-Revision- (1) An officer whose appeal has been rejected by an authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the superior authority next to the authority which has rejected his appeal within three months from the date of rejection of appeal as mentioned below: (a) to the Police Officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the appellate order. (b) to the Director General of Police who may either decide the revision himself or nominate any Additional Director General for deciding it. (c) to the State Government against the order passed under Clause (b)." 7. As per Rule 23 of the Rules 1991 an officer whose appeal has been rejected by any authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the superior authority next to the authority which has rejected his appeal within three months from the date of rejection of appeal as mentioned below i.e. (a) to the Police Officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the appellate order, (b) to the Director General of Police who may either decide the revision himself or nominate any Additional Director General for deciding it and (c) to the State Government against the order passed under Clause (b). Now, in this case, the appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of Police. The superior authority next to the authority which had rejected the appeal was the Commissioner of Police. As there is no provision for preferring a representation, it in fact was a revision which was preferable to the Commissioner of Police under Clause (a) of Rule 23 (1), which says that a revision shall be maintainable to the Police Officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the appellate order. Further this revision should have been filed within three months, which it was not, therefore, the revisional authority i.e. the Commissioner of Police rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. 8. Now, we may examine clause (b) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 23 of WRIA No. 9704 of 2025 4 the Rules 1991. Clause (b) says that a revision could be preferred to the Director General of Police. Thus, a revision under clause (b) lies to the Director General and not to the Additional Director General and if any revision is preferred, the Director General has the authority to nominate an Additional Director General or any other Director General for deciding it. It does not mean that a revision under clause (b) would lie to Additional Director General straightaway. It can only go to the Additional Director General, if the Director General nominates him to decide a revision preferred before him, on his behalf, and not otherwise. No doubt, the Commissioner of Police is of a rank equivalent to the Additional Director General but he is not a Director General so as to attract clause (b) of Rule 23 (1). If the aforesaid provision is read in any another manner, it will lead to incongruous results. 9. Of course, if a revision is filed and decided under clause (b) then there is a further remedy of revision before the State Government but in this case the revision has not been filed nor decided under clause (b) but under clause (a) as the Commissioner of Police decided the revision against the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner of Police. Promotions are made from the post of Additional Director General to the post of Director General, a factual position, which is not disputed by the petitioner's counsel rather admitted. The petitioner was posted in the Commissionerate of Gautam Budh Nagar and the said Commissionerate is headed by the Commissioner of Police. 10. In view of the above discussion, the very filing of the second revision was without any authority of law. The Tribunal while passing an order for its disposal within three months in Claim Petition No. 162 of 2024 was misled as if a representation (not a Revision referable to Rule 23) was pending, otherwise it would have seen this aspect of the matter, especially with regard to limitation prescribed. This by itself will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Something which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The petitioner could not have possibly preferred the second revision before the State Government as the first revision was decided under clause (a) and not clause (b) of Rule 23 (1), therefore, any order passed by the Tribunal for its disposal is inconsequential. 11. For all these reasons, the second revision was not WRIA No. 9704 of 2025 5 maintainable and benefit of limitation cannot be given to the petitioner based on any order passed by the State Government allegedly under Rule 23 (1) (c) of the Rules of 1991, especially when the revision itself was not maintainable. Further, if at all, assuming that such a revision would have been maintainable, the State Government should have first of all seen that the first revision was dismissed on the ground of limitation without considering the merits, therefore, it was not open for the State Government to consider the merits of the matter without considering the question of limitation. 12. For all these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the claim petition was barred by limitation as prescribed under the Act of 1976 and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the same. The writ petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. August 28, 2025 Anuj Singh WRIA No. 9704 of 2025 6 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench